The Assembly met at noon (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Personal Statement

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On Tuesday 29 May Mr Dallat made a number of charges against me. I wish to respond by way of a personal statement.
Mr Dallat falsely claimed that at great inconvenience to him I had departed the Agriculture Committee on Friday 25 May to electioneer in Portadown.
That comment bears no resemblance to the truth. The Committee minutes show that I left the meeting at 11.27 and that, as arranged, my Deputy Chairperson continued in the Chair. I was involved in other business. The arrangements for the meeting had previously been discussed and agreed with members. The Committee rose at 2.54 that afternoon.
I did canvass in Upper Bann that afternoon but — importantly — the Agriculture Committee had risen for the day before I arrived.
Members who wish to study the minutes of the Agriculture Committee meeting on Friday 25 May will see that the Member who made the allegations against me joined and left the Committee on no fewer than seven occasions, causing disruption to business and at one point making the meeting inquorate.
My Committee has met consistently throughout the agriculture crisis, showing leadership and giving support to the industry and to those involved in the fight for its survival. I resent an attack which questions in any way my efforts as Chairperson in that battle.
I point out to the Member that he will face legal action if he repeats the allegations outside the privilege of the House. This is not the first time that the Member has made such allegations here.
I had to miss two other meetings of my Committee during the foot-and-mouth disease crisis — to attend a funeral service and to attend a memorial service for the late Joey Dunlop, who was one of my constituents. On each occasion I made appropriate arrangements with the Deputy Chairperson, and the Committee was kept fully informed and given notice of the arrangements. I have every confidence in the Deputy Chairperson’s ability to do his work.
I take my work as a parliamentarian seriously. It is to be regretted that a Member who was not appointed to the Committee from the beginning chooses to make political capital from this sequence of events. Members will note from the minutes of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development that my record for chairing its meetings — and taking into account the long hours that are involved — is second to none. However, the Deputy Chairperson also has a job to do and should be given the opportunity to do it.
Mr Speaker, I wanted to put that on the record.

Mr Speaker: As is customary, the Member referred to may say whether he wishes to accept the statement.

Mr John Dallat: I am pleased that Dr Paisley felt the need to offer an explanation to the Assembly, given that we were in the middle of the foot-and-mouth disease crisis. Now that the elections are over, I have no doubt that there will be no need to raise the issue again.

Social Security Fraud Bill: First Stage

Mr Maurice Morrow: I beg leave to lay before the Assembly a Bill [NIA 16/00] to make provision, for the purposes of the law relating to social security, about the obtaining and disclosure of information; and to make provision for restricting the payment of social security benefits in the case of persons convicted of offences relating to such benefits and about the institution of proceedings for such offences; and for connected purposes.
Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Mr Speaker: The Bill will be put on the list of pending business until a date for its Second Stage has been determined.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the Clerk to put my name down to speak. My understanding was that we would hear from the Minister for Social Development about the Bill before any decision was made.

Mr Speaker: Perhaps I need to clarify the matter for the Member. This was the formal First Stage of the Bill. The Member is referring to another motion on the Order Paper on the matter of accelerated passage. We will come to that later in the normal fashion, and Members who wish to speak will be called then.

Game Preservation (Amendment) Bill: Second Stage

Mr Sam Foster: I beg to move
That the Second Stage of the Game Preservation (Amendment) Bill [NIA 15/00] be agreed.
The purpose of the Bill is to amend the Game Preservation Act (Northern Ireland) 1928 to extend the partridge shooting season by one month so that it commences on 1 September each year. That will bring the season here in line with that in the rest of the United Kingdom.
The amendment is in response to representations made by local enterprises to extend the partridge shooting season for commercial reasons. It is also supported by organisations that represent shooting interests in Northern Ireland. While the main areas of commercial interest are Rathlin Island and the Copeland Islands, I am also advised that several shoots would be prepared to release partridges if the season were extended.
In 1999 some 73 shoots released partridges in Northern Ireland. The majority are not run as businesses, but many sell a day’s shooting to supplement the shoot income and defray costs for syndicate members.
I have been told that a further consequence of the Bill might be that some local sportsmen who currently travel elsewhere in September might stay in Northern Ireland. It is not possible to estimate the economic impact of the changes accurately, but the British Association for Shooting and Conservation argues that it would contribute to the local economy and help to maintain the rural community.
My Department carried out a full public consultation. In addition to the Environment Committee, 370 organisations were consulted. These included the Department’s statutory advisory body on nature conservation, the Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside, the relevant environmental bodies, district councils, organisations representing farmers and land owners, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and local shooting clubs.
Sixty-six responses were received — the great majority favoured the amendment of the 1928 Act. Four objections were received. The first was to blood sports in principle; the second was to the maturity of the birds as quarry in September; the third was to the premature disturbance of other quarry species, such as pheasant, for which the season is later; and the fourth was based on the need to protect the native grey partridge.
A few respondents, although they supported the Bill, also raised the issue of a possible threat of disturbance to other native wildlife. The Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside and the environmental bodies outside Government did not object to the proposal. The Environment Committee had no objection to the proposal but asked for more detail on the extra revenue that might be generated and the additional economic and other benefits that might arise through increased tourism.
The Department’s research indicates considerable potential benefits for the commercial shoot organisers. They will attract overseas visitors and their families, and local providers of services such as accommodation, hospitality and transport will receive spin-off benefits. In the case of Rathlin Island, there is the potential for a syndicated revenue of up to £70,000 for the month. Additional benefits of up to £200 a head by way of costs incurred by shooters for travel, bed and breakfast and entertainment might also accrue. Most of this would benefit the local economy. In the case of the Copeland Islands syndicate, the estimates are for four extra shoots at £3,500 a day during September. These are likely to be taken up completely by visitors from the USA who would stay locally.
In bringing this legislation forward, I took full account of the concerns raised in the consultation. First, the question of blood sports falls outside the scope of the Bill. Secondly, with regard to the maturity of the birds, I have been advised that the eggs are usually laid in April or May to allow the birds time to mature and adapt to the wild. The birds would normally be mature in September. However, as all the birds are artificially reared, it would be the responsibility of the game managers and shoot organisers to ensure that they release only fully-grown birds and that these birds are released into conditions that are conducive to good sporting practices. It is not in their interests to release immature birds, which make easy prey and will bring the sport into disrepute.
The third issue of concern is that the changes would create a premature disturbance to other quarry birds. This matter cannot be addressed directly by my Department. It is the responsibility of game managers to ensure that, under the terms of the code of good shooting practice,
"shooting should not commence until all birds are mature and fully adapted to the wild".
However, I am advised that the possible upset to other quarry is minimal.
The last point concerns the native partridge. I have been advised that it is now accepted that there are no native grey partridges in the wild, and it is highly unlikely that they will be re-established in the foreseeable future. Sufficient suitable habitat no longer exists for them, and current farming practices militate against creating such habitats. I understand that there are only a few native partridges left in the island of Ireland as a whole and that those that are left can be found only in the Republic of Ireland. The remaining population is not expected to survive.
With regard to the possible threat to native wildlife, several protective measures exist under wildlife legislation. In particular, some Members have raised concerns about the level of protection that is afforded to the Irish hare. I announced a species action plan for the Irish hare, to be implemented by a number of Departments including my own, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, and the Ulster Wildlife Trust. The plan includes a repeat survey of hares, which will be commissioned once the current foot-and-mouth disease restrictions have been lifted. Upon completion of the survey I will consider what further steps, if any, need to be taken.
This proposal could bring economic benefits without harmful conservation side effects.

Rev William McCrea: I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill. Members are looking forward to the discussions that will follow at Committee Stage.
Last September the Committee considered a consultation document issued by the Department of the Environment on extending the partridge shooting season. While we generally welcomed that proposal we did have some questions on the extent of the financial benefits arising from it. We still await the Department’s response to those questions.
The Committee has already received detailed representations on the Bill from the Countryside Alliance in Northern Ireland and the British Association for Shooting and Conservation. Both organisations expressed disappointment at the proposed changes to the shooting of rabbits and concern at the proposed legislative process by which the Minister may make future changes to the closed season. The Committee takes the concerns that have been expressed seriously and will take the necessary step to permit appropriate consultations with it.
Apart from these issues, the Committee wants to know why the original consultation document seen by the Committee made reference only to extending the partridge shooting season and yet the Bill proposes several other amendments to the 1928 Act. The Committee will be interested to learn what consultations there have been on these proposals. The Minister gave the number of consultations to the House today, but consultation with my Committee extended only to the partridge shooting season and not to the other measures which now appear in the Bill. The Minister can be assured, however, that the Committee will look diligently at the details in the Bill and will come back with any necessary amendments at Consideration Stage.

Ms Carmel Hanna: As Deputy Chairperson of the Environment Committee and on behalf of the SDLP, I welcome the Minister’s statement and concur with some of the points raised by Dr McCrea. I am concerned by the change effected by clause 1(3), which will allow the Minister to vary the closed season for all types of hare, grouse and other birds by ministerial Order rather than by legislation before the Assembly.
Clause 2 of the Bill deals with the shooting of rabbits on agricultural land. Many people regard rabbits as pests, and I have noted submissions from various lobbying groups that welcome the more permissive proposals that allow an extended time for shooting rabbits. However, I want to sound a note of caution: rabbits are pests to many people, but they are also part of God’s creation. I have reservations about any measure that could bring about the extinction of a species and have an adverse effect on ecology, biodiversity and variety of fauna. Are we clear that the extinction of rabbits is not an issue?
On the grounds of maximum possible accountability, I am concerned about clause 3’s making orders under the Act subject to negative resolution — perhaps the Minister will elaborate on that.
I will end on a light historical note. In the 51-year history of the Stormont parliament, the Unionist Government accepted only one amendment to a Bill from the Opposition, in the 1930s. It was an amendment proposed by a Nationalist MP to a measure for protecting wild birds, and it was unexpectedly accepted by the Unionist Minister. That caused some consternation at the time.

Mr David Ford: I am not sure what I should say in response to the point that Ms Hanna has just made. Perhaps if Dr McCrea, Ms Hanna and I can all agree, the Minister will find it easier to accept any views that may come from the Committee.
I also welcome the Bill, but I concur with many of the concerns that my Colleagues from the Committee have just raised.
In particular, I find it somewhat unhelpful when the memorandum relating to a Bill says that departmental research foresees economic benefits, but gives absolutely no quantification whatsoever as to what those benefits might be. It is not acceptable for a memorandum accompanying a Bill to make such a general statement and give no specific reference to what the perceived benefits are. If we are going to have a memorandum, we really ought to ask all Departments — and it just happens to be the Department of the Environment on this occasion — to ensure that the memorandum spells out what they are talking about. Unfortunately, this one has come along with a lot of other loose, woolly phrases that the Committee has seen and which were included in the consultation. It really is time that these issues were tightened up rather better.
I welcome the fact that the Minister actually noted the hare as one of the game species. The fact that he is now recognising that may mean that the concerns that people such as Mr Poots, Mr Wells and I have over hare coursing may gradually start to be addressed in this Assembly. It is clear that this remains a problem. I disagree with Ms Hanna in that I believe that the rabbit is a pest — several rabbits are definitely pests and several hundred rabbits are huge pests. We need to regard the hare, which is a native animal, in a different light. The rabbit, however, is an import from the adjacent island, and I would therefore have assumed that the SDLP would not have wanted it.
On clause 2 and the reference to shooting rabbits, is the Minister entirely happy that he now has adequate definitions of words such as "agricultural land" and "occupier"? Given the difficulties experienced at Westminster, particularly under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, where there are huge problems in defining "agricultural land", is he satisfied that the Department of the Environment here is rather better than the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was over there? Similarly, given the differences in land tenure — conacre and so on — is he absolutely satisfied with what the term "occupier", in relation to land, means?
These are some of the issues that we will need to look at in detail in the Committee. We can welcome the Bill in principle, but in practice, the Committee has a great deal to do on it.

Mr James Leslie: I am glad to see that amendments to shooting seasons are something that we can contemplate in legislation. It is a long time since they were changed. While I have reservations about this particular change, I think it is important that this matter be always kept under review and that we be alert to it.
My particular interest in this is that I rear, shoot and eat partridges — the last of those activities is the most pleasant, but I enjoy all three. On the subject of these rather elusive economic benefits, in sympathy to the Minister they are very elusive indeed, and they are not relevant to the argument or the issue. I can assure you that there is no economic benefit to me in rearing partridges — quite the opposite.
I cast back to the 1928 debate here, and more particularly the debate down the Corridor when this Bill was introduced, to see what rationales were advanced at that time. It is interesting to note that then, too, there was concern about the decline in the numbers of the native grey partridge, which even then was a consequence of declining habitat. Despite considerable efforts by the shooting fraternity, this decline was probably complete by the end of the 1960s. Sadly, there do not seem to be any left here now. A few years ago the Department of Agriculture introduced a scheme to encourage and provide some assistance for people to reintroduce grey partridges, but this has proved to be exceedingly hard work. However, I hope that initiatives to do that will continue. This Bill, by giving some cognisance to the interests of people rearing partridges, may provide some further encouragement.
I also believe that the countryside management scheme that has been introduced by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development will make a major contribution towards improving habitat. The debate about the future of the rural economy and farming is growing louder all the time. In that context, I trust that a move to more environmentally-friendly farming policies, along with the reclaiming for nature of a great deal of land that has been claimed for agriculture, will contribute to the kind of habitat in which it will be possible — if one takes a reasonably long-term view — to get partridges successfully breeding again in the wild.
However, if we continue to protect all predators, particularly raptors, it will prove to be as difficult for the partridge population as it is for the grouse population.
I hesitate in regard to the lengthening of the partridge season because while partridges in Hampshire may be fully grown by 1 September, it is much more difficult to achieve that in Northern Ireland, particularly during a wet year. I understand from people involved in rearing partridges in large numbers that eggs need to be imported from the continent in order that the birds can hatch and be fully grown by 1 September. However, the shooting fraternity self-regulates exceedingly well; therefore I hope that we can trust its judgement from year to year, depending on the rearing season. I welcome the Minister’s comments about that.
The season for shooting pheasants starts on 1 October. Few pheasants are shot in Northern Ireland before the last week of October. The people involved in that activity know that they need a few more weeks here before pheasants are fully reared, though they might be shot in the early part of October in the south of England. I trust that the self-regulatory disciplines of the shooting community will work in that respect.
The Bill does not distinguish between native grey partridges and imported red partridges, though it is appropriate to have the undefined term. Along with other Members, I am concerned that in clause 1(3) the Minister reserves the right to amend shooting seasons by Order. Although it has not been the case in the past, it might be an excessive burden if legislation were passed frequently. Widespread consultation is important, and the House should be given the opportunity to deliberate fully on any future changes.
I concur with other Members that the definition of "agricultural land" in clause 2 is wrong — we need a broader term. The other rules that regulate where one can shoot will provide the necessary protection to persons and property. All of the matters that I have raised can be addressed satisfactorily in Committee. I hope that there is some degree of consensus among Members, and I look forward to dealing with those matters during the Consideration Stage.

Mr Jim Shannon: I welcome the Minister’s statement and thank him for his time and effort. Approximately four years ago, many of the shooting organisations and conservation bodies approached elected representatives to push for a change in the legislation to bring forward the season for partridge shooting. I agree that there are benefits, though some Members may not. In my constituency, partridge shooting is a pastime, and these birds are used, together with pheasants, to try to increase the potential for many of the shoots. We should welcome that.
Strangford, the constituency I represent, enjoys sporting, tourism and economic benefits as a direct result of partridge shooting. The Copeland Islands, just outside my constituency, are used purely for partridge shooting, and this attracts tourists. Shoots on these islands are oversubscribed, and it is hoped that the existing potential for developing tourism can be increased. If permission were granted for an additional four days’ shooting in September, it would be possible, as the Minister has stated, to make around £3,000 on each of those days.
Rathlin Island, in Dr Paisley’s constituency, is another area where partridge shooting could be promoted to enhance the area’s potential for a growth in tourism. The shoot in Rathlin Island was recently featured in ‘Shooting Times and Country Magazine’, which is distributed throughout the UK and further afield. An advertisement listing the shooting dates for Rathlin Island which are available for booking was published in tandem with the feature.
A partridge shoot also takes place in Portaferry, in my constituency. If it were to begin in September the area would receive direct economic and tourism benefits. Partridge and pheasant shoots also take place in Rosemount in Greyabbey, and the extension of the shooting season by one month would provide extra potential. Dunleath estate in Ballywalter is a third example of such activity in my constituency. Ards Borough Council, of which I am a member, supported the legislation relating to this type of shooting.
Direct benefits are gained from visitors’ staying overnight in the locality, with the result that bed-and- breakfast accommodation, hotels, restaurants and country sport shops all profit. Tangible gains are made as a result of this activity. Shooting can and does create benefits. The countryside needs the creation of this tourism potential and economic benefit more than ever, therefore we should support this Bill. I am glad that there seems to be a consensus on this matter.
The maturity of the birds was mentioned. There is no reason why appropriate management cannot ensure that birds mature on 1 September so that partridge shooting can take place. Sportsmen understand the issues involved, and if the birds had not matured to a suitable standard, they would not shoot at that time. I think that they will be mature, and management is in place to ensure that this is the case. There will be clear benefits for everyone by 1 September.
The Minister is probably already aware of section 7(a) of the Game Preservation Act (Northern Ireland) 1928, about which myself and other Members are concerned. The Minister will agree that all legislation must be clear and reasonable. This paragraph is neither entirely clear nor completely reasonable. It relates to the shooting of rabbits on agricultural land, and uses the wording
"Provided that this section shall not render unlawful the shooting of rabbits on any agricultural land".
There seems to be a grey area, because some landowners in Northern Ireland do not own the shooting rights to their land and are not, therefore, in a position to authorise third parties. I am sure that the Minister would agree with this. The position in Northern Ireland is slightly different: while an occupier may have permission to harvest a crop off a piece of land, he may not have the authority to let people on to his land to shoot rabbits and control vermin. The wording of section 7(a) of the Game Preservation Act (Northern Ireland ) 1928 should be changed to,
"Provided that this section shall not render unlawful the shooting of rabbits at any time by authorised persons".
Such wording would ensure that the legislation is clear, reasonable and of benefit to landowners and those with the shooting rights of the land.
I welcome the legislation and the efforts that have been made to create it. We have waited four years for this, therefore it is good to know that on 1 September partridge shooting on Rathlin Island, Copeland Islands, Rosemount, Ballywalter, Portaferry and other estates can be taken advantage of and that tourism potential and economic benefit can be created in all the boroughs and constituencies involved.

Mrs Joan Carson: I welcome the opportunity that the Game Preservation (Amendment) Bill gives us to redress parts of the Game Preservation Act (Northern Ireland) 1928. The amendment in clause 1(2) will extend the shooting season for partridges to commence on 1 September annually, and this will bring Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom, as partridge shoots commence in England, Scotland and Wales on that date.
Evidence so far suggests that with appropriate management, partridges can be fully mature on 1 September. As everyone knows, wild grey partridges are extinct here, so there should be no basis for any objections for sustainable conservation on that score.
The change to the close season will also create a positive incentive for conservation by encouraging more landowners to rear and release partridges in the wild, which enhances the commercial sustainability of shoots, making a much-needed contribution to our rural economy.
This legislation should end the confusion about the legal position on shooting rabbits at night-time and on Sundays, but it contains some unclear references. The reference to "agricultural land" that has been mentioned several times already should be removed. Land types are difficult to define in law, and, as we all know, rabbits do not confine themselves to just that. Any reference to a specific land type only compounds the lack of clarity the Bill is attempting to redress.
Present firearms legislation is strict and clearly governs where shooting may take place. The terminology used to describe people permitted to shoot rabbits should be "any authorised persons". Many people have pointed out that some land occupiers do not own the shooting rights to the land, and they would not be in a position to give authority for third persons to shoot over it.
Clause 1(3) gives powers to the Minister to vary the close season in relation to any kind of game, and that causes me concern. I urge that a clause be included in the legislation to ensure that there is consultation with relevant bodies and organisations before any variation to a close season takes place. That would allow a wide range of expertise to contribute to discussions on any change to the close season so that the most sensible option is chosen.
I am also concerned about Orders made by the Minister being subject to negative resolution. That would curtail any debate in the Assembly. Negative resolution must be changed to affirmative resolution to ensure what we all want — open and transparent Government.
I hope that the Minister will consider these points when wording the final Bill.

Mr Mick Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. While supporting the Bill, I would like the Chairperson of the Environment Committee to reserve the matter until it reaches its Final Stage. I have difficulty with some of the terminology used.
Not all landowners own the shooting rights to their land and not all, therefore, are in a position to authorise a third party to shoot. There are particular means of letting land to a conacre, where the occupier has permission to take a crop, but in many instances he is not able to authorise just anyone to shoot on his land. The current wildlife legislation uses the term "authorised persons" to describe a broad spectrum of people who may shoot on certain lands. That is clearly defined in the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985. I strongly recommend that similar terminology be used in the Game Preservation (Amendment) Bill. I will wait until the Final Stage to say anything more. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Sam Foster: I thank Members for their comments, which have been very useful and have teased out many issues that we will look at. This is not a complex piece of legislation, and it has widespread support, particularly from people with an interest in game sport. We expect that it will bring some financial benefit locally, and it is widely accepted that it poses no threat to nature conservation. It also brings the partridge season here into line with the rest of the UK, and it should be seen as the Assembly’s responding positively to modest representations for a change that reaps some benefit to the rural economy.
Rural economy issues are important at all times, but particularly so at present with the crisis in farming and tourism. Providing a sustainable basis for the rural economy is vitally important. Some very interesting points have been made, and I will try to address some of the questions raised by Members.
With regard to the Minister’s being able to make future amendments to the close season for all types of game by Order, there was a view that the provisions of the Game Preservation (Northern Ireland) Act 1928 allowed for any changes to the close seasons to be affected by subordinate legislation, although this was not absolutely clear. Therefore, in order to clear up any such confusion, the proposed amendment to section 7(3) of the 1928 Act will allow me to make future amendments to the close season for all types of game by Order. The use of subordinate legislation procedures of course carries the requirement to consult publicly, and that includes the Environment Committee, which was Mrs Carson’s point.
The benefit of this proposal is that I will be able to make minor changes such as the present extension proposal without recourse to the lengthy and costly primary legislation procedure, which is designed for more major and complicated issues. This was seen as a technical amendment and was not included in the consultation. I apologise if Members thought that this was inappropriate, and I will note it for the future.
Reference was made to the threat to the rabbit population. I have been advised that there is no perceived threat to rabbits, and, in fact, their numbers are possibly increasing slightly. If there were ever any evidence of rabbit extinction, I would take appropriate steps to protect them.
On the change to the description of persons who can lawfully shoot rabbits on agricultural land, the 1928 Act restricts the lawful shooting of rabbits on any agricultural land to the occupier or any person resident with or employed by him. This reflects the nature and culture of landowning at the time.
The proposed change is now to allow the shooting of rabbits by a person so authorised by the occupier or owner. This change brings the legislation into line with the current practice where landowners or occupiers may give permission, or may ask a person who is expert in this field, to shoot pest rabbits. Since the change is of a minor and uncontentious nature, it was not included in the consultation process. I recognise the points that have been made about the definition of "agricultural land" and will take this issue on board.
Reference was also made to the financial aspects. The syndicate which has the shooting rights on Rathlin Island, in support of the argument in the change of the legislation, stated that it could mean up to an extra £70,000 as well as some spin-off for the local economy by way of travel, accommodation, meals and entertainment. As a result of subsequent enquiries, my officials estimated the possible potential revenue for Rathlin Island as being 10 days for 10 people at £350 a day per person, giving a figure of £35,000. There would also be additional revenue by way of accommodation, meals and entertainment and, while it is difficult to put a precise figure on it, this was estimated to be in the region of £150 to £200 per person, which would represent an additional £15,000 to £20,000.
In the case of the Copeland Islands syndicate, the market clients are largely from the USA and are normally accompanied by their families. This syndicate was planning an additional four days of shooting at £3,500 per party per day. There would be associated revenue by way of accommodation, meals, and so on, which could be broadly similar to that for Rathlin Island. Therefore there are additional benefits as far as those groups are concerned.
Some people referred to the immaturity of birds. The advice given to me, and to Members, is that no responsible manager would release birds if they were immature. My officials advise me that normally the birds are mature in September. The eggs are usually laid in April and May, which allows time for maturity and adaptation to the wild. The Bill has not been opposed by the Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside, by my Department’s statutory adviser on nature conservation matters or by the majority of other people consulted. In addition, the Bill has the support locally of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and other shooting interests.
I am aware of some concerns in different places, and I am glad that those issues have been teased out. The Department of the Environment will take them into consideration. I hope that I have addressed some of the questions raised by Members. I am sorry if any questions or points have been overlooked, but departmental officials will scrutinise Hansard, and I will write to anyone whose question has not been fully answered.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Second Stage of the Game Preservation (Amendment) Bill (NIA Bill 15/00) be agreed.

Department for Learning and Employment Bill: Consideration Stage

Mr Speaker: Members should have a copy of the Marshalled List of Amendments detailing the order for consideration. The four amendments to clause one and the amendment to the long title — since they are all on the same subject — have been grouped together in the provisional grouping of amendments selected list. Therefore, when I call the Minister to propose the first amendment, I ask that he and other Members who wish to speak to any of the amendments speak then in any debate that may follow, and I will subsequently put the amendments in the usual way.
Clause 1 (Renaming of Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment)

Dr Sean Farren: I beg to move amendment 1. In page 1, line 4 leave out "Learning and Employment" and insert
"Employment and Learning".
The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:
No 2 (clause 1): In page 1, line 9, leave out "Learning and Employment" and insert
"Employment and Learning".
No 3 (clause 1): In page 1, line 13, leave out "Learning and Employment" and insert
"Employment and Learning".
No 4 (clause 1): In page 1, line 15, leave out "Learning and Employment" and insert
"Employment and Learning".
No 5 (long title): In the long title, leave out "Learning and Employment" and insert
"Employment and Learning".
The Bill and the amendments to it propose a change in the name of the "Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment". Members may recall that during the Second Stage of the Bill, in April, I set out reasons for changing the name. Its undue length causes practical problems and its acronym, DHFETE, is unfortunate.
After much deliberation I decided that the title ought to be "the Department for Learning and Employment". Having discussed the title with the Committee for Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment I have agreed that an alternative formulation would be more acceptable. Therefore I have tabled five amendments which alter the order of the words "Learning" and "Employment". The amendments change the proposed new title to "the Department for Employment and Learning".
I trust that Members will agree that the shorter title is easier to say and, more importantly, reflects the Department’s responsibilities for lifelong learning and preparing people for employment. The resulting acronym, DEL, is acceptable and more positive than DHFETE.

Dr Esmond Birnie: Although some people might think that the Bill has a kind of rose-by-any-other-name aspect to it, I am pleased to support the amendments. The Committee always supported the principle of the name change and has been assured that the cost implications will be contained to under £15,000. The Committee accepts the inadequacy of the existing, unwieldy title and its unfortunate associated acronym.
However, the Committee was not convinced by the option of "Department for Learning and Employment" contained in the original Bill. The amended title, "Department for Employment and Learning", is better. It avoids any potential for the acronym DOLE. It also avoids the usage of the cumbersome "ƒ" used by the Department for Education and Employment in London (DFEE), which has become a casualty of the latest restructuring of Government in Whitehall. The amendment leads to the acceptable and easily remembered shorthand of DEL.
The Committee recommended amendment number one. There was unanimous agreement on that. One Member recorded a preference that the word "training" be retained in the title.
The working together of the Committee and the Minister on the amendments demonstrates consensus politics in action. The Committee supports the amendments. We suggest that it would be advantageous if all stages of the Bill could be completed by the summer recess. That would allow the Department and the Committee, under the new names, to progress with the real work in hand.
I thank the Minister and his officials for their meaningful and helpful input to the Committee Stage of the Bill. I also thank the Deputy Chairman for progressing the Bill through the Committee Stage in my absence. I support the amendments.

Mr William Hay: I support the Minister and the amendments. I also want to put on record the good work carried out by the Committee Chairperson and by the Deputy Chairperson, Mervyn Carrick. That was important in reaching an accommodation with the Minister before the matter came to the Floor of the House. We all agree that the old title was clumsy. It was difficult for everyone in the Assembly and in the Department.
The Department is responsible for so many issues in such a varied portfolio that it was always going to be difficult to shorten the name. At various stages in the Committee some members thought that the training aspect should be reflected in the new title. It was difficult to shorten the name and still try to cover the Department’s entire remit. The old title had five words, and now we are down to three.
The Committee and the Minister have managed to reach an accommodation on this matter. I welcome that.

Dr Sean Farren: I thank the Members who have spoken and, in particular, I thank the Chairperson of the Committee and Assembly Member William Hay for their support.
Members will appreciate that the amendments before them have, in effect, the same purpose as the Bill itself. My officials and I deliberated at great length over what the new name of the Department should be. We identified a number of options, including "the Department of Learning and Employment". This was rejected because it resulted in the acronym DOLE, which the Chairperson of the Committee has already mentioned. "The Department of Advanced Learning and Employment" was another option. That highlighted our involvement with higher education but did not adequately reflect our training and basic skills provision. This process continued for a number of months with various options being identified and then rejected for one reason or another. The new title proposed by these amendments effectively and equitably represents each of the key areas of the Department.
The Department’s staff are drawn from the Training and Employment Agency, which is an agency of the former Department of Economic Development, and the higher and further education divisions of the former Department of Education.
The new name portrays the image of a cohesive Department, as opposed to one made up of separate parts. It creates a shorter, more manageable title and, I trust Members will agree, a more marketable acronym.
On costs, I am happy to repeat the assurances that I gave during the Second Stage of the Bill. The main costs of the change are associated with stationery and signage. They are unlikely to exceed £15,000. The Department has purposely ordered only small stocks of stationery, and a large proportion of the Department still uses Training and Employment Agency stationery. The cost of changing the Department’s seal is around £150, and the signage currently in the Department’s headquarters costs around £200. I am aware of the Committee’s concerns on this issue, which arise from the costs of rebranding the jobcentres following the introduction of New Deal.
I want to assure Members that I have no plans, and there is no need, to rebrand jobcentres as a result of this change.
With regard to the amendments, I am happy that the Committee for Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment and I are in agreement, and I thank the members of the Committee for their time and effort during the Committee Stage of the Bill.
Question 
Amendment No 2 made:
"Employment and Learning" — [Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment]
Amendment No 3 made:
"Employment and Learning" — [Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment]
Amendment No 4 made:
"Employment and Learning"— [Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment]
Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Amendment No 5 made:
"Employment and Learning". — [Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment]
Long title, as amended, agreed to.

Mr Speaker: That concludes the Consideration Stage. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Product Liability (Amendment) Bill: Consideration Stage

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: When the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development met on 15 June I was asked to make a statement on its behalf. Following the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment’s request for comments on the proposals in the Bill, we considered how these matters might affect agricultural producers and the fishing industry in particular. The Committee was most concerned about a number of aspects.
Everyone knows the dire straits that farmers and fishermen are in these days. Many are facing financial ruin because of BSE, foot-and-mouth disease and cod closures, among other things. Members do not need me to tell them that. It has been voiced over and over again at length in this Chamber and elsewhere. On top of all these problems comes a Bill implementing yet another EC Directive that will leave food producers, farmers and fishermen wide open to be sued by consumers who feel that they had been affected by food that was defective in some way. The ramifications of a successful claim against the producers do not bear thinking about. The potential cost of extra insurance and other measures to protect themselves is yet another straw to break the camel’s back.
The Committee was most disappointed to see that those who will be directly affected by this Bill have not been consulted. I can imagine what their response would have been. It seems that when Brussels issues a decree, it must be implemented without question. Not only have those affected not been consulted, but they were not told about the Bill’s provisions and the implications and potential consequences for them.
The Committee sought and received an assurance from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development that everyone involved in agricultural production and the fishing industry would be made aware of possible repercussions and any additional costs that would arise. Therefore, I am pleased that in its report on the Bill, the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment has taken on board my Committee’s concerns about the additional costs and ramifications of successful claims. The report comments on the lack of consultation and the need to inform those affected. I trust that the Minister in charge of this Bill will urge his Colleague to take appropriate action.

Mr Mark Durkan: I appreciate and accept the concerns that the Member has raised on behalf of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development. I thank members of that Committee for giving consideration to this issue. In particular, I thank the members of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment for their scrutiny of this short Bill.
We must recognise that the timing of this Bill is far from ideal, as it comes in the wake of the foot-and- mouth disease crisis and in the context of the various pressures on fisheries. However, as the Member will realise, we have no option but to implement the European Directive that is the subject of this Bill. The Executive has had no choice in policy on this matter. However, evidence from other countries that already have this provision in force reveals no significant increase in costs to farmers or other affected groups. Nor is there any evidence of an avalanche of claims resulting from increased liability.
Consultation revealed that the vast majority of farmers already carry adequate cover for product liability. Therefore, this extension should not cause many of them any onerous additional burden. I can assure Dr Paisley that, before the Bill was introduced, my officials wrote to many interested parties in Northern Ireland alerting them to the need for this legislation. One response was received, and it was positive. There is a realisation that measures such as these, which are designed to restore public confidence in food safety, are of long-term benefit to producers as well as consumers.
I can give the Assembly the assurance that Dr Paisley’s Committee and the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment have sought. My Department, in conjunction with colleagues in the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, will ensure that those who could be affected by this Directive are made aware of the consequences and advised to take out any additional insurance cover that may be necessary.
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Long title agreed to.

Mr Speaker: That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Product Liability (Amendment) Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Trustee Bill: Further Consideration Stage

Mr Speaker: No amendments to the Bill have been tabled. I therefore propose, by leave of the House, to group the 46 clauses, followed by the four schedules and the long title. Hearing no objection, I put the questions to the House.
Clauses 1 to 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedules 1 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Long title agreed to.

Mr Speaker: That concludes the Further Consideration Stage of the Trustee Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Social Security Fraud Bill: Accelerated Passage

Mr Maurice Morrow: I beg to move
That in accordance with Standing Order 40(2), the Assembly grants accelerated passage to the Social Security Fraud Bill.
The Social Security Fraud Bill is an important piece of legislation that will make provision for Northern Ireland corresponding to provision made for Great Britain by the Social Security Fraud Act 2001. In Northern Ireland alone, an estimated £73 million per annum of public money is lost due to benefit fraud. By anybody’s standards, that is a large amount of money.
First, the Bill will help to reduce that loss through prevention and earlier detection, using new powers to acquire and disclose information. Secondly, it will reduce loss through deterrence, through the powers to restrict payments to persistent benefit offenders and the swift, effective punishment of collusive employers.
Social security Bills are, by definition, exceptional. The unique position of social security, child support and pensions is specifically recognised in the very Act that set up the Assembly, and from which its legislative competence is drawn.
Under section 87 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, I, as the Minister responsible for social security in Northern Ireland, am under a duty to consult with the Secretary of State with a view to maintaining single systems of social security, pensions and child support for the United Kingdom. That section recognises the long-established principle of parity in social security between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. People in Northern Ireland pay the same rates of income tax and National Insurance contributions as those in Great Britain. They are entitled to enjoy the same rights and benefits as people in Great Britain.
The cost of paying benefits in Northern Ireland is very heavily subsidised by Great Britain. For example, in 1998-99, the Northern Ireland insurance fund needed a transfer of £123 million from Great Britain just to meet its benefit obligations. In the same period, expenditure on non-contributory income-related benefits, which are demand-led and financed from taxation revenue, amounted to almost £2 billion.
This funding is predicated on the maintenance of parity, which I hope all parties in the House are aware of and fully understand. However, parity is a double-edged sword. Rights to benefits must be matched by obligations to society. If it is right that we should enjoy the same rights and benefits as people in Great Britain, it is equally right that we should play our part in tackling the problem of benefit fraud.
In line with section 87 of the 1998 Act, I have already consulted the Secretary of State and agreed that I should bring the necessary legislation before the Assembly. Parity covers not only the content of the legislation, but also the timing of its implementation. To ensure that certain proposals in the Bill are implemented at the same time as in Great Britain, the necessary powers must be available as soon as possible.
Ministers in Great Britain are eager to commence several provisions of the Social Security Fraud Act 2001 as a matter of urgency, particularly the section dealing with failure to notify changes of circumstances, which closes a loophole in the existing legislation. It is currently difficult to prosecute fraudulent claimants who have been paid by automated credit transfer (ACT) and who fail to declare a change of circumstances. That is because, unlike payment by giro or order book, such clamaints need not sign a declaration that there has been no change of circumstances before receiving their benefit payment.
Clause15 of the Bill would rectify this situation. The ability to prosecute fraud where the claimant is paid by ACT will be severely compromised until that provision is introduced. Ministers in Great Britain have delayed implementing their Act to allow the Assembly time to consider the Bill. Failure to grant accelerated passage will probably delay the Bill until the end of this year or the beginning of next. That will leave the loophole for ACT payees open. Ministers in Great Britain will probably be unable to delay implementation of their Act until then. This will lead to a break in parity, which is clearly unacceptable. It will lead to a situation where in certain circumstances fraudsters could be prosecuted in Great Britain but not in Northern Ireland.
It will also be difficult to expect the Great Britain National Insurance fund to continue to bail us out if we delay taking the necessary steps to close the loophole as a matter of urgency. Therefore I am seeking the leave of the Assembly to use the accelerated passage procedure set out in StandingOrder 40(2) to bring NorthernIreland law on these matters into line with GreatBritain with the minimum of delay.
The granting of leave for the accelerated passage procedure means that there will be no formal Committee Stage. I have already met with the Social Development Committee to outline the provisions of the Bill and to discuss some issues arising from it. I have taken on board the Committee’s comments on the use of information powers, and I have arranged for a draft code of practice that will govern the use of powers to be made available to the Committee. I have also arranged for the draft code of practice to be made available for Members in the Library. The draft code will also be published for public consultation. Members will have the opportunity to make their views known at Second Stage and Consideration Stage.
As Members will appreciate, social security Bills are a regular feature of the Assembly’s legislative programme. A decision on whether to seek leave to use the accelerated passage procedure will be taken on an individual Bill basis, bearing in mind the duty placed on me under section 87 of the NorthernIreland Act 1998 to seek to maintain single social security, child support and pensions systems. The fact that we are attempting to use the accelerated passage procedure today in no way prohibits Members present from raising issues with regard to the Bill. It simply means that the Bill will not have a Committee Stage.

Mr Gerry Kelly: Go raibh maith agat a Cheann Comhairle. Sinn Féin is opposed to social security fraud. We are particularly opposed to the organised social security fraud that is costing £73million. As the Minister said, £73million is a massive amount of money to be dealing with. We could be using that money in other ways.
Members have the right to be able to scrutinise the Bill and to put forward effective amendments. The Minister has not given a good argument for accelerated passage, which is a bad method of putting any Bill through the Assembly. There are particular problems in the Bill, and every Member should have the opportunity to scrutinise it.
It could affect people’s human rights and invade their privacy. Following investigation there is no comeback for innocent people to right the wrongs done to them. The Minister mentioned that there is an obligation from a parity perspective. However, there is no rush to bring this legislation forward. The Minister said that delay here would delay the implementation of the equivalent Act in Britain, and if that is the case then they will go ahead in Britain. He also said that there would be a code of practice. A code of practice is no substitute for good legislation, and we have seen that many times in the past. I oppose the use of the accelerated passage procedure, and I hope that others will do likewise.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: I want to raise the issue of accelerated passage. I understand what the Minister has said, and I agree with him on what needs to be done. My difficulty with this Bill and Standing Order 40(2) is that I am not sure that parity is mentioned. Either we decide that parity means accelerated passage or we do not. Such decisions must be made in all matters.
My understanding is that if this Bill were to go through the Committee Stage, the House could be asked to carry it over to the next sitting in September in time for its commencement. I am informed by people at Westminster that the commencement date is not expected until spring 2002, yet the Minister told me that it is expected to start in autumn 2001. I accept that, but there seems to be a difference of opinion.
We are setting a very dangerous precedent. Not long ago Michelle Gildernew commented that she was against setting the precedent of accelerated passage in the Assembly. At the time I said nothing, because I felt that what had to be said had been said. I am, however, concerned that Ministers are being allowed to accelerate whatever they want through the House.
On this occasion I am not as concerned as my Colleague, Mr Kelly, about what is in the Bill. No matter what we do, because of parity, the Minister cannot change what has been set down at Westminster. But how we allow Ministers and Departments to conduct business is a point of principle.
I understand that Westminster had six months with the Bill and that the Department for Social Development was told about it in January 2001. It did not, however, come before the House. Long before the Easter recess I asked the Chairperson and the Clerk of the Committee for Social Development if any legislation was to be dealt with between Easter and now, and nothing was forthcoming. Other Committee members know that the question was asked. My concern is therefore about how the Executive deal with business. They must deal with it better than they have so far, and they need to get that message.
The question for me is parity. Do we agree that parity deserves accelerated passage? The Committee or whoever is responsible for deciding should make that decision. It will be difficult for the Minister — whether it be Maurice Morrow or some other member of the DUP — because in fairness that Department will have most to do with parity in dealing with social security.
This is not a question of the Minister’s ability or about the content of the Bill. I accept all that he has said today. My argument is about our setting precedents which enable other Ministers to use acceleration for other reasons. We need to make very sure that this is not an abuse of power.

Mr David Ford: We face the issue of liaison between the Department for Social Development and the Department of Social Security in London and, on a wider scale, between the Executive and the Cabinet. I have heard no argument from the Minister on why the Assembly should be forced into rushing an accelerated passage procedure on this Bill through because they failed to get their act together.
Billy Hutchinson said that the Department was aware of this Bill in January. The English Bill was going through its process in Parliament at Westminster in January and February. If that was so, I see no reason for producing a Bill on the Floor of the House today and saying that it must go through in the few weeks before the summer recess and that if it does not, that will be the fault of Members who wish to scrutinise legislation properly. Talk that a code of practice might somehow be the solution to bad legislation is so spurious as to be unacceptable. Perhaps the Minister could tell us whether he has a Northern Ireland code of practice or if he has merely adapted the GB code of practice, as has happened with the Bill itself.
We seem to be rehashing the arguments that we had about the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill. We have never discussed the fundamental principle of how far we are bound by every clause, comma and full stop of Westminster legislation if there is to be parity in social security provision. Whilst we may have parity in social security in the rates of benefits paid, it is quite clear that parity of taxation does not exist in the United Kingdom. There is no parity of effect in social security payments either; the costs that claimants incur vary widely, yet there is a blanket allocation of the payment in pounds sterling per week.
We must start to discuss some of these issues, and not merely when a Minister decides that accelerated passage is needed for a certain matter. It was presumed that if we were to have a single social security system for the United Kingdom, that would have been a reserved matter. However, it is not. I am not aware that anyone in the House has argued that it should be. If it is not to be a reserved matter, the Assembly should give proper scrutiny to every aspect of its legislative programme. By proper scrutiny I mean no accelerated passage, and detailed scrutiny of every piece of legislation. If that results in a Minister’s having to try to negotiate with a Minister in London about the fine-tuning of a Bill as it goes through its Consideration Stage, so be it.
As long as we have the legislative duty here, we should use it. We should not merely run away saying "This is parity. Let’s do nothing".

Mr Fred Cobain: The Committee for Social Development had a long discussion about the Bill, and it did not have any objections. The Minister attended those meetings and answered specific questions. Therefore I want to make it absolutely clear that there is no dispute about the Bill. Accelerated passage is a different matter altogether.
We will face the issue of accelerated passage on a number of occasions because of the social security Bills and the relationship between this Assembly and Westminster. I am sure that the Minister will request accelerated passage on a number of important issues such as payments. I do not think that any Member will object to accelerated passage for payments, because people in Northern Ireland would be disadvantaged without it.
Let me highlight a number of issues relating to the Bill. Mr Kelly wanted to know how the Bill will be implemented. The Minister explained to the Committee that objections and concerns about the implementation of the Bill should be raised when the code of practice — which Members can study today — comes before the House.
The Committee has a number of concerns about the implementation of the Bill. Clearly there are human rights implications. The handover of power to the Department allows it to investigate a range of personal issues such as individual bank accounts. In some cases the Department will be able to delve into the personal arrangements of innocent people. That concerns me deeply. However, that debate will begin with consideration of the code of practice.
As far as possible, we should try to divorce these two issues. The Committee approves of the Bill. The issue of accelerated passage which has caused concern to a number of Members must be dealt with in a wider political forum. Parity is of enormous importance to claimants in the area of social security, and accelerated passage will not be stopped when it comes to paying claimants. The Minister responded as best he could to the Committee’s questions, and the majority of the Committee is satisfied with the Bill as it stands.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: Accelerated passage is the most important issue today. By using this mechanism we would create a precedent that could cause damage in future circumstances.
I support what the Chairman of the Committee said with regard to how the Committee examined the legislation before it. He is right in saying that we did not register any objections, but we did ask some very serious questions, and those were tabled to the Minister. Those were dealt with and, in fairness to him, he did promise us the code of practice, which will be subject to further examination by the Committee and by this House in the fullness of time.
On the question of infringement of human rights, which is something that I am particularly interested in and asked a direct question or two on, I received answers that are, I suppose, protected by this code of practice. I took the step of consulting a human rights legal expert, who assured me that on a preliminary reading of the proposed legislation he could not see where there would be an infringement of human rights. While a more definitive view could be sought on that matter, and I may reserve judgement on it, I was quite satisfied because I recognised his authority in that area. While the legislation does appear to be strong in some respects, unfortunately it may be necessary when we are dealing with this loophole.
Two things have frustrated me for many years as a public representative fighting people’s social security benefit cases. One is the amount of money that goes unclaimed each year and that should be given to those who are entitled to it. The second is the amount that is lost through fraud. I do not think that anybody could possibly stand over that and allow it to happen. I am afraid that the interpretation that might be put on our refusal to accept this request for accelerated passage might be that we were standing over a recognised loophole and allowing it to continue. That concerns me, because it annoys me to think of the abuse as well as the unclaimed amounts.
The Committee did get a fair chance at that preliminary stage. We will have opportunities at the Second and further Stages to examine the matter even further. I hope that a more definitive legal opinion may be available to me by then. At the moment, I hope that Members will agree to accept the Minister’s recommendation.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: The issue before this Assembly today is not one in regard to the content of this Bill. It is very important to keep that in mind. I myself am not a supporter of the acceleration procedures. There is a better way of doing business than that. On this issue we have to be absolutely honest, as was pointed out by Mr Cobain. He said that we will accelerate payments, but we are not prepared to accelerate legislation to stop fraud. Where do we stand in this Assembly?
Mr ONeill talked about his frustration when he has been representing people. I have had the same frustration when I have looked at the vast amount of money that is lost to the system through fraud. We must have a proper scrutiny of this today, because there is the code of conduct to be looked at, and there is another debate coming. People outside this House expect us, as the guardians of public money, to want to do something that should be done. After all, if we did not have devolution — and I happen to be a devolutionist — this provision would already be in force.
Let us take the pragmatic step of saying "Yes, we might not agree with putting business before the House in this way, but we need this procedure when it comes to making social benefit payments. We need it now to safeguard the public purse so that the money can be made available and more of it kept for the purpose for which it was raised". That is the issue before us. If there was something radically wrong with the Bill, people here would not accept it, but as there is nothing wrong with it, as the Committee procedure has shown, the time has come for us to speed up the process and to deal with this running sore.

Mr Maurice Morrow: I have listened carefully to all of the contributions. I would be bitterly disappointed if the Assembly were to decide that this is the time to take a stand on legislation and, in particular, parity legislation. It would be a tragedy if the Assembly, which was allegedly brought into being to speed legislation up and to bring Government nearer to the people, were to be the very instrument that held the process up. Several Members have voiced their concerns, and I in no way disparage those concerns. Some Members also recognised that we addressed all of the issues that were raised at the Committee as honestly and squarely as we could.
I want to deal with the issues that Members have raised today to see if I can further allay their fears and concerns. I hope that I can. Several Members mentioned the issue of human rights. The Bill does comply with human rights legislation. Mr ONeill has gone the second mile; he was concerned about this aspect, and he double- checked the facts. He has been satisfied, from another source, that the Bill complies with human rights legislation. Some Members raised the matter of the code of practice. The Committee raised this issue and put much emphasis upon it. The Committee was satisfied that the code of practice that we were introducing would go a long way towards ensuring that everything was done fairly and that every step that could be taken was being taken.
Mr Billy Hutchinson, Rev Dr Ian Paisley and others had concerns about the accelerated passage. This is not an attempt to abuse procedure — this is purely an attempt to keep up with parity legislation. I can understand why Members would want to object to the use of accelerated passage for anything other than parity legislation. If I were sitting on the Back Benches I would feel the same way. This is not an attempt to ride roughshod over the elected representatives in the House — the aim is keep up with parity legislation. Mr Hutchinson also made the point that much of the legislation that comes from my Department is parity legislation. He is right. My Department, probably more than any of the other 10 Departments that are answerable to the Assembly, deals with parity legislation. It follows therefore that I will be on my feet more often to ask for accelerated passage, purely in an attempt to enable us to stay in step with Great Britain.
Mr Ford also raised the issue of the code of practice. I have dealt with that, and I hope I have satisfied him as I think we did the Social Development Committee by the assurance that the code of practice is not something that has been cobbled together. It is a code of practice that the Social Development Committee is totally satisfied will meet the requirements.

Mr David Ford: Is the Minister speaking about a Northern Ireland code of practice and not an adapted Great Britain code of practice?

Mr Maurice Morrow: By and large, it is a code of practice for the rest of Great Britain. I assure the Member that it will also be unique to Northern Ireland.
The Chairperson of the Social Development Committee, Fred Cobain, has struck the right chord on all issues. He chaired the meetings that my officials and I attended, and he has made a very useful contribution. He has hit all the right buttons today, and he acknowledges the reason why we must opt for accelerated passage. I cannot gainsay or add to anything that he has said, and I thank him for his useful and positive contribution.
I have dealt as best I can with Mr ONeill’s concerns. The Bill is compliant with the Human Rights Act, and he has already satisfied himself on that point.
Mr Ford asked if it would not be possible to introduce this Bill before the Great Britain Bill receives Royal Assent. The answer is no. A more detailed answer is that, as with all social security Bills, amendments were tabled at every stage of its process through Parliament. Given the need for parity, it is better to introduce a Bill that reflects the Great Britain Act than to introduce a Bill at an early stage and ask the Assembly to work its way through corresponding amendments in order to achieve a corresponding Act. That would be an unnecessary use of the Assembly’s valuable time.
Dr Paisley said that in principle he is not an enthusiastic supporter of accelerated passage. Nevertheless, having been a parliamentarian for many years, he recognises the need for social security legislation to be kept on a par with the rest of the UK. That is a very valid point.
He also made the point that we in the Assembly are custodians of the public purse. Every year we lose approximately £73 million through fraud. Something has to be done about that, and today we are making an attempt to close the loopholes that fraudsters are jumping through.
Dr Paisley and Éamonn ONeill made the point that they have felt frustrated in their roles as representatives of their constituencies. When this legislation is passed, some of their frustrations will not exist any more. We will have gone a long way towards ensuring that legislation exists to trap those who abuse the system. We want to get funding and give social security benefits to those who deserve and need them. We also want to deprive those who are jumping in and out through the legislation loopholes and who are keeping money back from those entitled to it. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr Speaker: I remind Members that Standing Order 40(2) requires the Member in charge of the Bill to seek leave of the Assembly to proceed with accelerated passage. The motion can be carried only if the house is unanimous.
Question put and (in the absence of unanimity) negatived.
The sitting was suspended at 1.40 pm.
On resuming (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair) —

Enterprise, Trade and Investment
Unoccupied Property reserved for Job Creation

1. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to detail, by constituency, the rent paid to private landlords for property reserved for job creation but which remained unoccupied in each of the last five years.
(AQO1600/00)


Foyle is the only constituency in Northern Ireland where rent has been paid to private landlords for buildings reserved for IDB projects. IDB pays rent totalling £90,000 per annum for the two buildings at Campsie business park, which, despite all efforts to find tenants, to date remain unoccupied.


Can the Minister assure the House that every effort will be made to ensure that suitable tenants are found for those two premises at Campsie and that the £90,000 paid in rent is not wasted?


Estate agents have been appointed to market the sites — IDB came to the same conclusion as the Member. They have been attempting to find possible tenants and have also put the sites on the market. Negotiations are ongoing at present with a potential occupant. I cannot say anything further, save that I am very conscious of the point the Member makes. We are pursuing it as vigorously as we can to ensure that this liability is terminated.

Provision of Industrial Land (Newry and Mourne)

2. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to outline his plans to provide additional serviced industrial land in Newry and Armagh.
(AQO1597/00)


IDB currently has sufficient serviced industrial land in Newry and Armagh to meet short-term to medium-term needs. As development of the new area plan proceeds, IDB will work closely with the Planning Service and district councils to identify suitable new land for industry in both Newry and Armagh.


I thank the Minister for his response. He has pre-empted my supplementary. Will the Minister make every effort during the review of the district plans for Newry and Mourne and Armagh city and district to ensure that some sympathetic consideration is given to providing industrial land in rural parts — places like Crossmaglen, Keady, Middletown and Armagh city itself? Will he do whatever he can to ensure that we attract investors to those areas?


I was at Edenaveys industrial estate in Armagh some months ago, where the local economic development group had a sod-cutting ceremony. I am familiar with a number of the difficulties. The planning process for Newry is further advanced than that for Armagh city and district, as the Member will be aware. It has been the practice in recent years for IDB to focus its activities on main urban areas, whereas enterprise agencies, backed by LEDU and the International Fund for Ireland, focus more on the more outlying areas to which he refers. It is a question of balance, but I am satisfied at present that in that constituency there is adequate serviced land, although this will be continuously kept under review. I am also conscious that the Member has, on a number of occasions, pointed out to me his dissatisfaction with the degree of progress in Armagh city itself. IDB has taken these points on board.

Energy Costs

3. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to detail any measures he has for mitigating the continuing rise in energy costs; and to make a statement.
(AQO1588/00)


Principal measures include: the introduction of increased competition, consumer choice and liberalisation into the energy market and interconnection with other competitive markets; an examination of a possible buyout of the long-term generator contracts; an electricity transmission and distribution price control review; and studies on the development of an all-island energy market.


My supplementary has nearly been answered. Will the Minister offer his ongoing commitment to provide cheap, variable, alternative fuels as energy alternatives?


I am familiar with Members’ frustration at the relatively slow progress in dealing with what is a matter that affects every consumer.
I cannot think of any other issue on which I have had more traffic from Members, whether in the form of delegations or questions. As the Member will know, the subject has been debated in the Chamber, and the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee is currently undertaking an energy inquiry. Next week I am hoping to meet electricity representatives to review the report on the industry’s performance, particularly during the storms earlier this year.
However, there have been positive developments. A new gas-fired — and infinitely more efficient — power station is being built at Ballylumford. The Scottish interconnector will, I hope, come into operation at the turn of the year, and we have a proposal for another gas- fired power station, which will be located at Coolkeeragh near Londonderry. All of these things, combined with the regulator’s review of transmission and distribution costs, should contribute to a reduction in costs and certainly greater efficiency in the energy system.
Making radical changes will mean dealing with the long-term contracts, and while we are actively pursuing the option of buying out those contracts, it is a very complicated and expensive process. I hope to be in a position to report to the House later in the year.


Does the Minister agree that Northern Ireland consumers have very little to look forward to in terms of reduced prices until the long-term contracts are dealt with? Can he give us any further details of the position of those negotiations? This is the fundamental issue as regards the high cost of energy in Northern Ireland. Until those uncompetitive contracts are dealt with, the consumer cannot look forward with any real hope to the downward pressure on prices that is required.


The Member is probably right, but there are a number of things to be considered. It is a matter of trying to open more of the market to competition. The contracts include a specific fuel cost section, and therefore there is a direct linkage between international fuel costs and the price the customer pays. The more efficient the plant, the smaller that component part of the price is, because 80% of what the consumer pays is in generation costs. With brand new plants at Ballylumford and, it is to be hoped, Coolkeeragh, we will have state-of-the-art equipment in place which will be able to generate more elctricity per unit — or per therm of gas — than is currently the case. Additionally, we will have the interconnector.
The Member is correct in that a very bad deal was done in 1991, and we are paying the price for that. There is no point in trying to hide that from the House. I intend that all of these issues — the regulator’s review of transmission and distribution costs; the gas pipelines; the way we treat the contracts and a range of other matters — will be dealt with in the current calendar year. I intend that we will then be in a position to report to the House with a comprehensive package of what it is possible to do. I cannot be more specific than that.
The Treasury will have a role in deciding whether we can deal with the buyouts. That will mean bonds. Bonds have been used as a tool in some other utility buyouts in Great Britain. However, each case has to be dealt with on its merits. We are dealing with very large sums of money, and we have to be aware that we are taking major decisions. We will never get ourselves completely free from this until we deal with the contracts.

Penn Nyla (formerly Courtaulds)

4. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to detail any contact between his Department and Penn Nyla (formerly Courtaulds) in Lurgan in relation to impending job lay-offs in the factory; and to make a statement.
(AQO1574/00)


At the end of March the chief executive officer of Penn Nyla met with IDB officials to outline the steps being taken to sustain the weft knit business. Since then, IDB has been in regular contact with him to review progress, agree actions to help the company and provide practical assistance.


People who represent the constituency are concerned. The Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment has met trade union representatives from the factory and will meet the management. Can the Minister give details of the investment that the company received from the IDB? There are concerns that machinery in the factory has already been broken down and sold off. Has any public money been used to purchase that machinery, and, if so, will there be any clawback? What has been done with regard to jobs for people who have been laid off? It has been predicted that by the end of August all the employees will have lost their jobs and the factory will be closed. Go raibh maith agat.


I am familiar with the concerns that the Member raises. Those matters have raised their heads on previous occasions. However, the hon Member will be aware that the company had to be summoned to appear before the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Industry. Perhaps that gives an insight into some of the difficulties that we have in dealing with large corporations. They like to make decisions unfettered in any way, and the only reason that the summons could be issued was that the company had received public money. IDB, as it does in all cases, had to look at the letter of offer under which that public money was drawn down to see if its terms and conditions were implemented. I cannot be more precise. We are watching that type of thing closely.
I raise two other points. We wanted to achieve a successful outcome, and an alternative buyer has been sought, either a management buyout or another company. So far no offers have been received. However, under the circumstances, we are prepared to examine any proposals and treat them on their merits, irrespective of previously agreed arrangements with the existing owners and without the overhang from other offers. If we feel that the letter of offer has not been implemented as was agreed, the potential for clawback exists. However, that is a legal matter, and I cannot go into too much detail here.


I have noted what the Minister has said. We welcome the fact that the meetings have taken place and that various proposals have been looked at. Nevertheless, how does the Minister propose to minimise the impact of the job losses in Lurgan, and can he say whether the recommendations of the textiles task force will be based on facts and focused on the textile industry rundown in Lurgan?


Significant progress has been made on the implementation of the Kurt Salmon report. One of the recommendations was that a company should be established among the industry, something we are facilitating at present. An interim chief executive has been identified, and many of the legal technicalities have been completed. I look forward to the early launch of that company, which will help to promote the textiles industry.
I want to make it clear that we facilitate the industry to help itself. We will have to give considerable thought to how we target the selective financial assistance offered to companies. We want to give it to companies that bring forward proposals in line with the Kurt Salmon recommendations. The procedures have been followed in the current situation in Lurgan. As soon as we detect a threat to jobs, the Department of Higher and Further Education is notified, and a team assesses the situation individually with each worker who will be directly affected.
In some cases people decide to retire, but other people require retraining or another job. The Member will also be aware that in his constituency, we have, fortunately, had consistently lower than average levels of unemployment. The claimant count is currently running at 3·6%, which is in the bottom quartile for Northern Ireland. I am optimistic that if it is not possible to find an alternative buyer for the factory, then many of the people there will be able to be redeployed. There is a standard procedure for this, and my Colleague Dr Farren is directly involved in it. If the company cannot be replaced, I hope that as many people as possible will be relocated and retrained.

Tourism Ireland Limited

5. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to detail his plans in relation to the setting up of offices for Tourism Ireland Limited; and to make a statement.
(AQO1584/00)


The North/South Ministerial Council has decided that the company will have its headquarters in Dublin and a regional office in Coleraine. The board of the company is also currently developing its proposals for offices in key tourism markets. Progress will be considered by the North/South Ministerial Council at the end of the month.


I am a little upset that the Minister is unable to be more specific about where the key markets are. It seems that there is a huge need for urgent action on the part of Tourism Ireland Limited. It is obvious we cannot expect that a long-term development programme will deal with the crisis currently arising out of foot-and- mouth disease, but it appears that very little is being done to promote this region for tourism both internally and from GB over this summer. Surely as we can now hope that foot-and-mouth disease is being put behind us, it is incumbent upon Tourism Ireland Limited and the Minister’s Department to do more to actively promote tourism, particularly rural tourism, whether that requires overnight stays or day trips in Northern Ireland.


Is there a question there?


I thought that there was, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Can the Minister not give more hope, in the absence of compensation for the great majority of those affected, that his Department will be engaging in strong tourist promotion?


I do not accept that nothing is being done. Tourism Ireland Limited is not going to be effective in the marketplace until the tourism season in 2002. It has only just been established; it must get its staff together, and it must get agreed marketing material. McCann Erickson has been appointed to work on that. We have seen some preliminary sight of it, but it will not be effective in the marketplace until next year.
The Member will be aware that my Department has made £1 million available for a particular promotion in the short term to deal with the aftermath of foot-and- mouth disease. That is ongoing. It applies in all markets, both locally and internationally. Proportionately, that is two or three times more than is being spent in the rest of the United Kingdom. We will also have access to a small amount of national resource as a consequence of moneys that have been allocated by the Treasury to the British Tourist Authority — we will get a share of that. That share alone would not have been sufficient.
In addition, with my Colleague the Minister for Culture, Arts and Leisure we have supported alternative locally based actions such as the North West Fest. If there are other applications coming forward we will look at those on their merits, but over the next few months we have a rolling programme of specific promotional events. I am sure that if the Member cares to look at the tourist web site, he will see that there is a very ambitious programme ongoing which we hope will contribute towards the minimisation of the losses in the industry over the coming season.


Does the Minister accept that the difficulty with the concept of Tourism Ireland Limited is not so much about offices as about the Republic of Ireland’s ability to hog the tourists who visit attractions in Northern Ireland? What plans are afoot to tackle the problem of tourists who day-trip in Northern Ireland yet base their holidays in the Republic of Ireland and subsequently leave their currency there?


I am not surprised to see the Member on his feet about these issues, given his particular interest in north County Antrim. The Member has put his finger on the problem, which is that 70% of the people who visit Northern Ireland from overseas come onto the island via the Republic. In recent years there has been a pattern of day-tripping, but with the overnight stays taking place in the Republic. The Member is absolutely right.
He may recall that, in the setting up of Tourism Ireland Limited, it was written into the agreement and understanding of 18 December 1998 that the company has to pay particular attention to the special circumstances of Northern Ireland over the last 30 years. That is written into what might be regarded as the deeds of the company. Any marketing that it does, now or in the future, must therefore take that into account. That particular phraseology is there to prevent precisely what the Member was talking about.
It is not simply a matter of Northern Ireland versus the Republic. It also applies to the north-western part of the Republic itself. You will find great dissatisfaction in places north-west of Sligo and into Donegal. The people there feel that they have not been getting their share of the tourist traffic. It is a question therefore of moving many of the visitors further up the island, and of developing our ability to bring international visitors directly into Northern Ireland via our own airports. That means air links, and, as the Member will be well aware, we are poorly served at present by international destinations. We currently have only a Brussels route and an Amsterdam route. We have no route to Paris and no flight to North America. Negotiations are ongoing to resolve both of those matters, but until that infrastructure is there, we are always going to be fighting a rearguard action. We are acutely aware that that is the real problem, and therefore we have to take steps to counteract it.


I thank the Minister for his continuing interest in Tourism Ireland and his unquestioned efforts to make it a success. Does the Minister understand the frustration that there is locally that this key project appears to be taking an unacceptable length of time to get up and running? Will he assure the Assembly that he is making every effort to fast-track the project, given that it is a key element in our future tourism?


I appreciate the frustration, but we have asked some very high-calibre individuals to head this organisation. These are people who run chains of hotels and people who understand business.
For example, the deputy chairperson came from Microsoft. They are working as hard as they can. They have had four or five meetings, and I hope to meet them at the end of the month in the Member’s own district. It is my view that resources have been provided. They have had some difficulties with staffing and getting secondments from Bord Fáilte in the Republic, but that is an industrial relations issue. Through the Tourist Board we have supplied all the help that we can. They are working on the material for next year. That is the key thing, because you must have the marketing tool.
Andrew Coppel, who was born and bred in Belfast, is the chairperson, and he has a very clear understanding of the tourism issues. I am confident that when it starts to roll out for the next tourist season, the Member will feel satisfied that we have got matters right and that the market will grow in Northern Ireland.

Job Creation in the North-West

6. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to detail his targeting social need strategies to increase job creation in the north-west, specifically in the Foyle constituency.
(AQO1576/00)


The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment’s actions aimed at reducing unemployment and increasing employment opportunities for the unemployed and long-term unemployed in deprived areas across Northern Ireland, including the north-west, are detailed in ‘Making it Work’, the New TSN action plan report which was published on 21 March. It is available in the Assembly Library.


Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.
I thank the Minister for his reply, but I am not sure that we in the Foyle constituency can wait for this to be put into action, given that we have the highest long-term unemployment in the whole of the Six Counties. Fourteen of the most socially deprived wards are located in the Foyle constituency, and this is directly related to long-term unemployment. I ask the Minister to consider setting up a task force in the Foyle constituency to address this long-term unemployment. We talk about it, but no action is ever taken.


The Member needs to be reassured that I fully understand the situation in the Foyle constituency. As the Member will know, I have visited the area as frequently as I possibly can. I visit the city regularly. I know that my colleague Dr Farren, through his own Department, has been working very hard, and his Department and mine have been co-operating to devise the best measures that we can.
The Member will also be aware that the Programme for Government makes a series of major commitments. Long-term unemployment is still high in the Member’s constituency, but I think it ought to be noted that if you compare the situation today with that of five or ten years ago, there has been progress, albeit insufficient. Nobody can be complacent, but there has been progress.
Indeed, there have been a significant number of industrial developments in the Foyle constituency that we hope will provide the long-term foundations for a resolution of these issues. It is only possible when the opportunities are there. At the risk of taking some time on this answer, I will give the Member an example. When it was indicated that the Coolkeeragh power station might be rebuilt, we formed a group in the city, in conjunction with the Department of Finance and Personnel and others, to try to bring together businesses that could benefit from the £200 million that will be spent on the erection of the power station. We encouraged local businesses to be available to take advantage of the contracts when they came in.
That is the sort of measure that we are trying to take, as well as those that are published in the Programme for Government. I believe that given enough time to work through this Programme for Government, we will see inroads being made into long-term unemployment in that area.


I note the Minister’s response to the previous question, and his reference to Coolkeeragh. I suggest — and I think that he has already indicated this himself — that one significant way in which his Department could positively contribute to overcoming the high levels of deprivation and unemployment, as well as underpinning the policy of targeting social need and equality, would be to confirm when the investment in the new gas pipeline will take place, enabling Coolkeeragh to be built. When is the Minister likely to be in a position to make such a statement?


The Executive has discussed this matter, and we will be negotiating during the summer with Bord Gáis and Questar, its American partner. They have made an offer, which is currently on the table. We have set up a negotiating team with the Department of Finance and Personnel, the Economic Policy Unit and my own Department, and we will be entering into discussions with the Irish Department responsible for energy and negotiating the best deal that we can possibly get. We will be bringing back proposals in the autumn.
I am hopeful that this can be successfully dealt with, but it does involve a very complicated set of negotiations. I take heart from the fact that we actually have an offer on the table, and that we have something to negotiate about. There is a requirement for additional generating capacity by 2004-05 in Northern Ireland. At present, the only proposal on the table is from the Electricity Supply Board of Ireland (ESBI), and we are actively pursuing it to the best of our ability. The Executive will make a final decision in September.


The Minister will realise that the north-west area spreads well beyond the confines of the Foyle constituency and includes a large part of west Tyrone. Does the Minister agree that while we welcome improving economic activity, we also realise that parts of west Tyrone continue to fall dramatically behind the Northern Ireland average?
Can he give assurance that his TSN strategies will address this issue in the greater north-west area, including west Tyrone in general and Strabane District Council in particular?


There is no way that "Team West Tyrone" are going to let me forget that they are part of the north-west. I sympathise with the Member, because I suspect that behind his question is the fact that he does not anticipate the benefits of gas spreading to Omagh and the surrounding areas. I understand that, but the Member should take heart from the fact that one cannot be sure what route the pipeline coming from the gas field in the west of Ireland might take.

Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment
Degree Courses

1. asked the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment to outline his plans to increase the number of institutes of further and higher education that offer degree courses.
(AQO1596/00)


I do not have any plans to increase the number of institutes of higher and further education that offer degree courses. Members should be aware that currently 12 of our 17 colleges deliver degree courses, three of them delivering degree courses on a full-time basis for different degrees in their entirety. Members may also be aware — due to several references having been made — of the development of foundation degrees from next September. These will be delivered in the institutes of further and higher education and will mark a significant and very welcome development as far as the involvement of these institutes and the provision of degree programmes is concerned.


The experience with the university campus in Armagh has been excellent, and the more opportunity that the people across Northern Ireland have to access foundation degrees and further education, the better.
Can the Minister give any more details of how many additional foundation degree course places there might be in the near future, and at what institutes they will be provided?


In the first phase, 100 full-time equivalent places will be made available, and I have commissioned eight foundation degree pilot programmes. These are developed and delivered by university-led consortia involving further education colleges and employers. The following further education colleges are involved in developing, and will be therefore involved in delivering, the pilot programmes: Belfast Institute of Further and Higher Education, Newry and Kilkeel Institute of Further and Higher Education the North West Institute of Further and Higher Education, the East Antrim Institute of Further and Higher Education, the Upper Bann Institute of Further and Higher Education, the North East Institute of Further and Higher Education and the North Down and Ards Institute of Further and Higher Education, and Omagh College.


Will the Minister concede that widening the provision of degree courses to the institutes of further and higher education would result in more accessible high level education?


It is important to underline the fact that in the development of higher education courses in our institutes of further and higher education very strict criteria apply, and these include the appropriateness of buildings and equipment, the experience of staff and the viability as regards student numbers.
With regard to full-time higher education, the Department requires that colleges have a track record of delivering part-time education across at least four vocational areas, viable enrolments in each course and a reasonable total of higher education enrolments expressed as full-time equivalent students. Those critieria are in place in order to ensure that wherever higher education programmes are delivered they are delivered to the highest and most exacting standards.

Queen’s University, Belfast and the University of Ulster (Part-Time Teaching Staff)

2. asked the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment to detail the number of teaching staff employed on a casual or part-time basis by Queen’s University, Belfast and the University of Ulster.
(AQO1581/00)


The latest available figures relate to the 1999-00 academic year. The Queen’s University of Belfast employed 98 casual part-time academic staff, and the University of Ulster employed 85 such staff.


Is it appropriate that such high numbers should be employed on a part-time basis? Is this an appropriate way of recruiting teaching staff to universities? Does the recruitment of so many people on a casual basis make it difficult to meet equality targets?


The Member must appreciate that the numbers of part-time staff in both institutions are not excessively high and that staff are recruited on the basis of rigorous criteria. Staff have to meet the desired qualification and experience requirements, where experience is relevant. I assure the Member that the colleges are required to observe those criteria. However, it is for colleges and universities to respond to their own recruitment needs.
In some disciplines, staff recruitment is not always easily achieved, particularly in fields where there is competition from the commercial sector. However, our universities ensure that they apply high standards. I do not agree that the figures indicate a worrying trend.


Does the Minister intend to convert many of the part-time posts into full-time positions?


I am not responsible for such matters; it is for the universities to determine their own recruitment procedures. As Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment I am anxious that when recruiting staff the colleges and universities should meet the highest standards in every area. I am assured that they themselves will determine how to dispose of part-time staff in proportion to full-time staff. That will be judged by colleges and universities according to their needs and circumstances.

Limavady College of Further and Higher Education (Capital Expenditure)

3. asked the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment to detail his plans for capital expenditure at Limavady College of Further and Higher Education; and to make a statement.
(AQO1590/00)


The estate of Limavady College of Further and Higher Education is in relatively poor condition, and the college is carrying out an economic appraisal of its accommodation needs. I recently made a ministerial visit to the college and observed at first hand the condition of some parts of the estate. This is why the college is engaged with the Department in developing its plans for the future development of its accommodation needs. When the appraisal is clear, the needs will be considered in the light of available capital resources and other priorities in the sector.


Is the Minister aware that Limavady College of Further and Higher Education plays a key role in the delivery of further education, not only in the Roe valley but beyond that jurisdiction? Can he assure us that when the appraisals are complete every effort will be made to upgrade a college that was sadly neglected during direct rule?


The House will be aware of my firm commitment to ensuring that everything possible is done to upgrade the accommodation and the facilities in the further education sector. I am aware of the considerable contribution by Limavady College of Further and Higher Education and all other colleges to the educational needs of their areas, Northern Ireland and beyond. Since my recent visit to Limavady College of Further and Higher Education I have been more aware of that than ever.
We will move as expeditiously as resources allow, making good the considerable deficits in estate and facilities that colleges experience.

Ministerial Counterparts (Republic of Ireland)

4. asked the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment to outline any contact he has had with his ministerial counterparts in the Republic of Ireland in matters relating to his Department.
(AQO1594/00)


There are a number of issues that fall to my Department that are the subject of North/South co-operation requiring regular contact with colleagues in the South. The contacts and co-operation include issues such as higher education research, vocational education and training, the mutual recognition of vocational qualifications, tourism training, joint overseas recruitment and European funding issues.
I have had the opportunity to raise these matters in discussion with counterparts in the South, in particular the Minister for Education and Science, and the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. I have also had the opportunity to raise some of these matters at meetings of the North/South Ministerial Council sector bodies on trade and development and tourism.


Does the Minister agree that continued cross-border co-operation is important in further and higher education, particularly with regard to a better return on resources, the ability to maximise the range and quality of opportunity and access for our students? Can the Minister provide some details of his meetings with the Department of Education in Dublin?


Since taking office I have had meetings with Minister Michael Woods and his predecessor Micheál Martin, in which we ranged across many of the issues that I referred to in my initial response to the Member.
Contacts have been developing between officials in our Departments since those meetings. There are long-standing contacts between officials dealing with educational matters at higher and further education level and well-established contacts between the officials within the Training and Employment Agency and its Southern counterpart, FÁS.
I come from the university sector, and I am well aware of the formal and informal contacts that have developed over the years. I have been quite surprised at the degree of contact, evident in student flows between North and South at the further education level.
During the course of the visit to Limavady I was surprised at the number of Southern students who are enrolled in some of the courses there. They travel quite a distance to avail of the high standard of the courses that we make available in our further and higher education institutions. Historically, there has been, and still is, a considerable flow of students from North to South. Staff exchanges at various levels also take place.
We are building on a healthy situation. We want to strengthen what has been taking place and to be innovative where development is required.


The Southern Irish universities do not have an equivalent to the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE). Given that they do not get the benefit of such an external benchmarking of their research standards, would the Minister consider suggesting to his Dublin counterpart that something like the RAE be considered for the Republic of Ireland?


It is hardly my place to suggest to my counterpart in the South how he should benchmark the research initiatives that are funded there. It is evident from the considerable flow of funding into the universities and research institutes in the South that their performance is judged highly. They have their internal systems in the universities for benchmarking research, and I am satisfied that their initiatives ensure high standards. The existence of co-operation, albeit that it might be greater in a number of disciplines, between our institutions and those in the South is testimony to the high regard that academics and researchers here have for the standards down South.

Call Centre Employment: Training Provision

5. asked the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment to outline training provision for call centre employment.
(AQO1587/00)


My Department, through its institutes of further and higher education, provides a wide range of courses which are suitable for people wishing to pursue careers in call centres. The Training and Employment Agency, through existing programmes such as New Deal and Bridge to Employment, also contracts with a wide range of training providers to deliver training in customer care, which is the key skill for securing call centre employment.


Will the Minister ensure that there will be adequate levels of pay for those employees and that his Department will also cover issues that affect health and personal safety?


I am not clear as to whether that is an appropriate question to the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment.


You are quite correct, Mr Deputy Speaker. In taking care of the responsibilities that fall to my Department and to the institutes and training providers with whom we are associated in the delivery of the training referred to in the Member’s question, the highest standards apply.

Childcare Grant

6. asked the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment to detail the number of students likely to benefit from the new childcare grant announced as part of the student support package.
(AQO1592/00)


My officials estimate that around 1,000 students will benefit from the new childcare grant announced as part of the student support package.


I thank the Minister for his reply and welcome the fact that his student support package addresses childcare. Can he explain why there are inequalities in childcare provision between colleges of further education?


Before I could give a detailed answer I would require information on the inequalities to which the Member seems to be pointing. I refer to my earlier comments with respect to the questions on Limavady College. My Department is investing considerable sums of money in further education to ensure that the highest standards are attained, whether the money goes directly to courses or to support services such as childcare facilities. We are concerned that these services are adequate to meet need and of the highest standard. If the Member has particular institutes in mind where she feels there are severe inadequacies and which may be in breach of requirements, I will be willing to receive such information and have the situation in those institutes examined.


In the light of the Minister’s response and cases in my own constituency, will he actively seek out single parents and mature students who qualify for the childcare grant to ensure that they benefit from it? We have to seek out eligible people and make them aware of the grant rather than wait for them to come to us.


When I announced a new package of financial and other support for students, I mentioned plans for initiatives in conjunction with the Educational Guidance Service for Adults, the National Union of Students and the Union of Students of Ireland to fully inform potential students — whether they be school-leavers or adults returning to education. This will include information on available courses and the necessary support and advice to help them succeed.


Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister’s statement that 1,000 students will benefit immediately from this grant. Will the grant awards be based on means testing, and will they be available to single parents in receipt of maintenance awarded through the courts? Will the grant apply equally to male and female student parents?


The childcare grant is available to parents who care for children below school age, and that applies to male and female carers. Details of their means will be taken into account, individual cases will be judged and applicants will benefit accordingly.

Educational Guidance Service for Adults (East Antrim)

7. asked the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment whether there are proposals to develop an Educational Guidance Service for Adults office and a learningdirect centre in the constituency of East Antrim.
(AQO1578/00)


The Educational Guidance Service for Adults (EGSA) is seeking to expand its services throughout Northern Ireland, and it plans to open two offices in the Craigavon and Dungannon areas. In the short term, EGSA is collaborating with the East Antrim Institute of Further and Higher Education to provide a service to customers in this area. The provision of learndirect centres is a matter for the University for Industry and its Northern Ireland partners. East Antrim Institute, which has a learndirect centre on its Newtownabbey campus, will be invited to present proposals for the further development of learndirect services in the east Antrim area.


I thank the Minister for his answer, but the East Antrim Institute is not in my constituency. There is no further education college in the East Antrim constituency. Will the Minister acknowledge the need for a focal point for continuing education in East Antrim? In the past there has been an absence of education projects from such groups as EGSA. A centre would encourage continuing education and, perhaps, attract additional educational funding from other organisations such as Proteus, which have failed to invest in education in the East Antrim constituency.


Mr Beggs has frequently asked about the provision in his constituency, and I have highlighted the redevelopment of provision for further education in Larne. It is actively under consideration, and on several occasions the Member has received details from my Department and myself on the investigation of the re-establishment of such provision in Larne. I do not accept that the situation in his constituency is being neglected. The remit of EGSA runs throughout Northern Ireland, and need will be met where it exists.


Mr Byrne has advised me that he will be absent. Question 8 will receive a written answer. Mr Armstrong is not in the Chamber.

Careers Guidance

10. asked the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment to co-operate and co-ordinate with relevant Departments to maximise careers guidance for students engaged in further and higher education.
(AQO1585/00)


Careers guidance in further education is delivered through a partnership formalised by service level agreements between each institute and my Department’s careers service. Each university has qualified careers staff. I will periodically review the effectiveness of those arrangements to ensure that students are helped to make informed career decisions.


The Minister is aware of a real need for students in further and higher education to have an understanding of potential career paths that will optimise their contribution to the employment sector. Will the Minister examine the current student career guidance system to ascertain its effectiveness?


The question is essentially but not exclusively concerned with the universities’ responsibilities for careers guidance. I am aware from my own experience that both of our universities have highly developed careers advisory services. Those services ensure that students throughout, and particularly towards the end, of their courses are made fully aware of career prospects ahead of them, and of the professional programmes that they need to pursue to enter the careers of their choice.
The provision of careers guidance in further education colleges has come under the remit of the careers review that we have undertaken in conjunction with the Department of Education. My Department is currently examining the report from that review, and it is hoped that decisions will soon be made in the light of its recommendations.


In his reply to Question 1, the Minister answered both my main question and my supplementary.


You are supposed to ask Question 11.


As my questions were both answered in the reply to Question 1, I will follow on.
The Minister stated that 100 foundation degree places are to be introduced across the area. What are the intended numbers for each specific college? I particularly want to know about the Newry and Mourne area.


I must advise you that it would have been normal to have asked Question 11, and then asked the supplementary.


I cannot give a specific breakdown of numbers for each of the colleges that will be involved in the pilot scheme.
In theory, 100 full-time equivalents could amount to almost 200 students. Given that most of the initial courses will be available on a full-time basis, however, it will probably be less. Numbers in the colleges will not be huge, as we have 100full-time equivalents, but this is part of a pilot project which will begin its second year in September. There will then be a detailed ongoing review, which will evaluate the effects and benefits of the introduction of foundation degrees. That will help us to decide their future. We have to remember that foundation degrees are not the only form of higher education provided in institutes of further and higher education.

Association of University Teachers

12. asked the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment to detail the current status of pay negotiations with the Association of University Teachers.
(AQO 1580/00)


The current status of pay negotiations with the Association of University Teachers is a matter for the Universities and Colleges Employers Association as the representative body for higher education employers. It is its responsibility to advance pay negotiations with the Association of University Teachers.


On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In respect of your handling of question 11 from MrBradley, I find it unsatisfactory that a Member can raise an entirely new question under the guise of question 11. It was the Minister’s responsibility to link questions1 and 11 had he seen the relevance of that link. It is unsatisfactory for any Member to be allowed to ask an entirely separate question under the guise of one which is advertised.


I am inclined to agree with MrKennedy. Mr Bradley took me by surprise. Time is up.

Social Development
Warm Homes Scheme

1. asked the Minister for Social Development to detail the steps he is taking to publicise the Warm Homes scheme.
(AQO 1582/00)


I announced the Warm Homes scheme at the National Energy Action conference on 27March2001. At the same time the Department for Social Development wrote to a wide range of interested persons to draw their attention to the scheme. Future publicity is the responsibility of the Eaga Partnership, which has already contacted voluntary organisations to advise them of the scheme.


The Warm Homes scheme should target senior citizens — though not exclusively — to prepare their homes for that extra heat which is necessary for winter. We often hear that senior citizens are not getting their full entitlements. Will officers from the Department for Social Development phone or visit all senior citizens to ensure that everyone benefits?


Research has shown the areas of greatest need. The scheme that we now have in place will address that need. It is the responsibility of the scheme manager, which is the Eaga Partnership, to advertise and to make this scheme as widely known as possible. I have no reason to believe that they will not be successful in doing that. On the contrary, I am quite satisfied that all those who are entitled to benefit under the scheme will know about it. We will continue to monitor that to ensure that the people who need the scheme most are aware of it.


Further to his response to the Member for Strangford (Mr McCarthy), can the Minister indicate, in financial terms, the response to the home energy efficiency scheme from my constituency of Mid Ulster? Were there many successful applications?


I do not have figures relating to individual constituencies with me, but I will try to make that information available to the Member. The scheme starts on 1 July 2001 and in its first year will run for nine months. We have funding of £4·38 million for that period.


Can the Minister advise how many efficiency schemes will be processed on 1 July or in the first nine months of operation?


It is anticipated that approximately 4,000 households will be addressed in the first year. The target thereafter is 6,000 in a full year.

Housing Executive Tenants: Installation of Double Glazing

2. asked the Minister for Social Development to detail how many Housing Executive tenants in the constituency of East Antrim have refused the installation of double glazing.
(AQO 1577/00)


I understand that one tenant has firmly refused to have double glazing installed. The Housing Executive is aware of some problems arising from a scheme in the Whitehead area, and a meeting involving the Housing Executive, a local councillor and a representative from the residents’ association took place on 30 May 2001. The Housing Executive is addressing the issues raised by the Member.


I thank the Minister for his answer, but I was referring to Dunluskin — a completely different area. I will pass other names to the Department.
Does the Minister support the installation of double glazing where the contractors do not measure the window frames and subsequently resort to block cutting, which gives rise to unnecessary dust and disruption to the home? After installation the windows might remain unplastered for three to four weeks, which is not acceptable. Will the Minister review this current practice? All people would then be encouraged to upgrade their homes by installing double glazing.


It is imperative that any work carried out by the Housing Executive or its contractors is done to the highest standards. The executive generally does a very good job, but there are unacceptable exceptions. The competence of the work and the contractors on any scheme are closely monitored by the Housing Executive. As to the question of whether double glazing should be installed ad infinitum, it is difficult to say yes or no. Every case has to be treated on its merits, and that is the way forward.

Community Groups (Meetings)

3. asked the Minister for Social Development, pursuant to AQO 1372/00, to detail (a) the four groups he met with; (b) the seven groups he declined to meet; (c) the criteria for meeting with the four groups selected; (d) the reasons for refusing to meet the other seven groups; and (e) the criteria on which he bases such decisions.
(AQO 1573/00)


I will ensure that the Member receives the requested lists of groups. As to the reasons for meeting — or declining to meet — particular groups, I assure the Assembly that I meet a wide range of people and organisations from all sections of the Northern Ireland community. There are no formal criteria for decisions on requests for meetings. Each case is considered on its merits and in relation to the demands of my other responsibilities. If the Member had a list of all the groups I meet across the community, I have no doubt that she would be quite impressed.


I thank the Minister for his answer. My questions arose because some community groups that were concerned at being refused meetings had contacted me. I impress on the Minister the need for inclusiveness and the need to ensure that fair and equal treatment be given to all sections of the community. Go raibh maith agat.


Whatever faults I may have, I do not think that not trying to reach out and meet groups from all sections of the community is one of them. I assure the House that I try to be as transparent as is humanly possible in all my ministerial duties. I have not, at any time, tried to sidestep or evade any group or organisation that has come to me with real and genuine problems and concerns. I have reached out, and groups and organisations come to me from all sections of the community across the Province.


I was interested to hear the Minister’s reply and to see how he is relating to Sinn Féin in answering its question. I find that rather surprising, given that he and his party were instrumental in Sinn Féin’s gaining the Fermanagh and South Tyrone seat in the recent Westminster election. Would it not now be in keeping with the DUP’s new image to meet with all deputations and groups?


I am disappointed that the Member took the opportunity to score a few cheap, snide political points. I, and I alone, offered to and did stand aside in the Fermanagh and South Tyrone constituency. I offered her party the opportunity to ensure that one candidate went forward. It was her —


I must advise the Minister that this is totally inappropriate.


Which was wrong, Mr Deputy Speaker: my answer or the question?

Benefits: Availability

4. asked the Minister for Social Development to detail the measures he has put in place to ensure that all those entitled to benefits are aware of their availability.
(AQO 1583/00)


The Social Security Agency realises how important it is that everyone should claim and receive the proper benefit entitlement. The agency ensures that the public is aware of the range of benefits and other services that are available through a number of measures, including a comprehensive range of leaflets, promotion in the media and a benefits enquiry line for people with disabilities, and by working closely with a number of voluntary sector organisations.
Publicity campaigns to signal the arrival of new benefits and to increase awareness of existing ones are regularly undertaken. Some recent measures are: the launch of the agency’s customer charter pack, which includes a guide to all benefits and details of agency locations; the minimum income guarantee campaign, which has given pensioners in Northern Ireland an extra £100,000 per week; the foot-and-mouth disease financial help leaflet, targeted at those most affected by the crisis; and the recently launched guide to public services for pensioners in Northern Ireland.


I thank the Minister for his reply. However, I understand that about £6 million went unclaimed in 2000. Therefore the various measures that the Minister listed are not working. Does the Minister agree that we really need better education for those people who meet the general public? They should be better educated in more than one benefit. They should change their mindset to such a degree that claimants who come to benefit offices are not seen as a nuisance. Claimants should be given full help, education and assistance in filling in the plethora of forms, and pointed in the right direction. They must be recognised as being the most deprived and vulnerable in our society, rather than often being dismissed and told to go to the Citizens Advice Bureau.


In general, I agree with Mr Close. However, I will outline several things that my Department is either doing or has done. The qualifying conditions for social security benefit are contained in the leaflet ‘Your Guide to Our Services’. That leaflet is incorporated in the Social Security Agency’s customer charter pack. It is also available separately at all social security offices and at the benefit shop in Castle Street.
The leaflet is a signpost document that tells customers the following: who can get the benefit; how to claim; rates of benefit payable; what other help is available; and where more information can be obtained. Other leaflets and claim packs are available from social security offices.
I accept that this information should be as widely available as possible. We have run publicity campaigns, which have had some success. The recent minimum income guarantee publicity campaign has resulted in just over 7,000 pensioners claiming the minimum income guarantee since the campaign was launched in March last year. Of these, just over 4,000 have been successful. That resulted in the average extra payment of £100,000 a week in the hands of pensioners in Northern Ireland. We are getting there, and these figures are sure signs of increased public awareness of what help is available.


What evidence is there that the publicity campaigns have been successful?


The information that I have already given is evidence of the campaigns’ success. Over 4,000 of the pensioners who applied were successful — that represents an extra payment of £23 a week each, which comes to a total of £100,000 extra a week for pensioners. With regard to long-term strategy, the Social Security Agency will be developing a strategy for maximising the uptake of all benefits as part of its targeting social need (TSN) initiative. That will follow on from the introduction of the family resources survey in Northern Ireland, the results of which will, I hope, be available by autumn 2003.


I commend the Minister on the number of initiatives that he says he has taken on creating awareness. What training do the staff in the benefit offices receive to make them competent in relaying the information to the public? How do they protect claimants’ privacy? Some old people feel that they are begging for something that they are not entitled to, and they often have to speak to people in a reception area or hallway where there is no privacy.


Benefit forms are constantly being reviewed by the Social Security Agency. Work is under way to simplify several claim forms, such as the minimum income guarantee form. Over the next few years, the welfare reform and modernisation programme will see a much simpler and more streamlined application process introduced for all benefits.
Customers can contact their local social security office for help with completing forms. Pensioners and disabled customers can avail of a free telephone line that offers the facility to make a claim by telephone, or arrangements can be made to call at their home. Staff training is an ongoing process and is constantly reviewed to ensure that all staff are competent and capable of dealing with queries that come across the counter on a day-to-day basis.


Ms McWilliams does not seem to be in the Chamber, so I call Mr Mick Murphy.

Housing Benefit

6. asked the Minister for Social Development to detail the number of housing benefit claims currently being processed; and to make a statement.
(AQO 1575/00)


At the beginning of May 2001, a total of 130,935 tenants were receiving housing benefit. Of those, 90,677 were from the public sector and 40,258 were from the private sector. The average length of time taken to process a housing benefit claim is 13 days in the public sector and 23 days in the private sector. Those figures compare favourably with similarly sized local authorities that administer housing benefit in Great Britain. Housing benefit is an important part of the social security system, providing assistance with meeting accommodation charges for those on low incomes.


I do not believe that the figures you quoted accurately reflect the time it takes to process applications for housing benefit. What is the cause of the delays? What steps does the Minister intend to take to ensure that the assessment of housing benefit claims is carried out more quickly and in a less complicated way so that delay and complexity will not remain a barrier to payment? Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.


Since 1998 the total number of claims has decreased by some 10,000. During this period the percentage of private sector tenants has increased from 25% to 31% of the total caseload. The average length of time it takes to process a housing benefit claim from the date of receipt to the date of payment is 13 days in the public sector and 23 days in the private sector.


I listened to the Minister’s reply with great interest. I wonder whether, if those waiting in the benefits queue were to treat the Minister in the same way as the crowd he was part of treated the First Minister in Upper Bann last week, he would condone their behaviour?


I am not sure of the relevance of the question. Nevertheless, I am quite happy to answer it. If the Member is referring to my presence at the electoral count in Upper Bann, I was there. However, he should check with some of his own associates to find out my exact role at that event.


The Minister mentioned that housing benefit waiting times compared favourably with those across the water. How do current figures compare with those from three years ago? People want to know if there is a bigger drain on the resources than there was three years ago.


Housing Executive figures compare favourably with the larger-sized authorities. As I said, it takes the Housing Executive 13 days to process a claim in the public sector and 23 days in the private sector. In Manchester, it takes 88 days in the public sector and 100 days in the private sector. In Birmingham, it takes 57 days in the public sector and 73 days in the private sector. In Liverpool, it takes 51 days in the public sector and 38 days in the private sector. In Sheffield, it takes 105 days in the public sector and 78 days in the private sector. The Member will find that Housing Executive figures compare very favourably with others.

Northern Ireland Housing Council

7. asked the Minister for Social Development to detail the cost of overseas trips undertaken in an official capacity by members of the Northern Ireland Housing Council in each of the last five years.
(AQO1591/00)


The cost of overseas trips outside the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland in each of the last five years is as follows: 1996-97: £3,714; 1997-98: £2,079; 1998-99: £7,179; 2000-01: £5,370. No overseas conferences were attended in 1999-2000.


Given that many tenants have waited years for basic repairs, does the Minister agree that the lifespan of the Northern Ireland Housing Council is at an end — particularly since we have a Social Development Committee in the Assembly — and that the money could be better spent on tenants?


The Housing Council has carried out a very useful function in years gone by. If the situation changes we will examine the matter. I have no plans to change the housing delivery and advice structures at the moment.


Has the Minister planned any conferences to pour some balm on the uncomfortable losers who are displaying their ill temper and impetuosity in the form of questions this afternoon?


I would prefer to devote my energies to the job I am doing — looking after the housing programme. I do not get too worried about those who have stupid remarks to make in the Assembly. I would rather deal with those who want to — [Interruption].
I note what the Members are saying, but they should sit on their swords and get on with the job, like the rest of us.

Income Support

8. asked the Minister for Social Development to detail any plans he has to increase help with housing costs for homeowners with a mortgage who make a fresh claim for income support.
(AQO1595/00)


Homeowners should, where possible, have a responsibility to provide for short-term contingencies themselves — for example, through mortgage payment- protection insurance policies. By securing appropriate insurance cover, homeowners can become more self-reliant and avoid situations such as short periods without work that are not covered by the benefit system.
The current income support rules on help with housing costs, which also apply to jobseeker’s allowance claims, were introduced in October 1995. For the majority of people, help with mortgage interest is restricted until they have been on benefit for 39 weeks. Exceptions to this rule are people who took out a mortgage before 2 October 1995, certain vulnerable people who are subject to a shorter waiting period, and people aged 60 and over, whose interest is paid from the start of the claim. There are no plans to reduce the waiting period.


I thank the Minister for his reply, although he rehearsed the facts rather than address the question. In the current climate we have regular and unpredictable job losses right across Northern Ireland. Property prices are higher than they have been for a long time, and the greatest fear, particularly for young, new homeowners, is that they will end up out of work very suddenly and lose their homes. Will the Minister not accept that his Department has the lead responsibility in ensuring that mortgage repossessions are kept to a low, that home ownership is kept to a high, and we do not have people thrown out of their houses because of unexpected unemployment?


I have the greatest sympathy with people who get into difficulties with their mortgage repayments. I have spent some 27 years of my life helping people and have arranged many mortgages, so I do have some knowledge about that.
The majority of people making fresh benefit claims are people who have been working. It is reasonable to expect that people in employment who take out a mortgage should make some provision against difficult times such as short periods of unemployment between jobs. Many will have savings or final payments from their employment that will help cover part, if not all, of the mortgage payments during this initial period. I want to re-emphasise that the fresh claims are coming mostly from people who have been working.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Sir John Gorman] in the Chair)

Enterprise, Trade and Investment

Unoccupied Property reserved for Job Creation

Mr John Dallat: 1. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to detail, by constituency, the rent paid to private landlords for property reserved for job creation but which remained unoccupied in each of the last five years.
(AQO1600/00)

Sir Reg Empey: Foyle is the only constituency in Northern Ireland where rent has been paid to private landlords for buildings reserved for IDB projects. IDB pays rent totalling £90,000 per annum for the two buildings at Campsie business park, which, despite all efforts to find tenants, to date remain unoccupied.

Mr John Dallat: Can the Minister assure the House that every effort will be made to ensure that suitable tenants are found for those two premises at Campsie and that the £90,000 paid in rent is not wasted?

Sir Reg Empey: Estate agents have been appointed to market the sites — IDB came to the same conclusion as the Member. They have been attempting to find possible tenants and have also put the sites on the market. Negotiations are ongoing at present with a potential occupant. I cannot say anything further, save that I am very conscious of the point the Member makes. We are pursuing it as vigorously as we can to ensure that this liability is terminated.

Provision of Industrial Land (Newry and Mourne)

Mr John Fee: 2. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to outline his plans to provide additional serviced industrial land in Newry and Armagh.
(AQO1597/00)

Sir Reg Empey: IDB currently has sufficient serviced industrial land in Newry and Armagh to meet short-term to medium-term needs. As development of the new area plan proceeds, IDB will work closely with the Planning Service and district councils to identify suitable new land for industry in both Newry and Armagh.

Mr John Fee: I thank the Minister for his response. He has pre-empted my supplementary. Will the Minister make every effort during the review of the district plans for Newry and Mourne and Armagh city and district to ensure that some sympathetic consideration is given to providing industrial land in rural parts — places like Crossmaglen, Keady, Middletown and Armagh city itself? Will he do whatever he can to ensure that we attract investors to those areas?

Sir Reg Empey: I was at Edenaveys industrial estate in Armagh some months ago, where the local economic development group had a sod-cutting ceremony. I am familiar with a number of the difficulties. The planning process for Newry is further advanced than that for Armagh city and district, as the Member will be aware. It has been the practice in recent years for IDB to focus its activities on main urban areas, whereas enterprise agencies, backed by LEDU and the International Fund for Ireland, focus more on the more outlying areas to which he refers. It is a question of balance, but I am satisfied at present that in that constituency there is adequate serviced land, although this will be continuously kept under review. I am also conscious that the Member has, on a number of occasions, pointed out to me his dissatisfaction with the degree of progress in Armagh city itself. IDB has taken these points on board.

Energy Costs

Mr Billy Armstrong: 3. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to detail any measures he has for mitigating the continuing rise in energy costs; and to make a statement.
(AQO1588/00)

Sir Reg Empey: Principal measures include: the introduction of increased competition, consumer choice and liberalisation into the energy market and interconnection with other competitive markets; an examination of a possible buyout of the long-term generator contracts; an electricity transmission and distribution price control review; and studies on the development of an all-island energy market.

Mr Billy Armstrong: My supplementary has nearly been answered. Will the Minister offer his ongoing commitment to provide cheap, variable, alternative fuels as energy alternatives?

Sir Reg Empey: I am familiar with Members’ frustration at the relatively slow progress in dealing with what is a matter that affects every consumer.
I cannot think of any other issue on which I have had more traffic from Members, whether in the form of delegations or questions. As the Member will know, the subject has been debated in the Chamber, and the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee is currently undertaking an energy inquiry. Next week I am hoping to meet electricity representatives to review the report on the industry’s performance, particularly during the storms earlier this year.
However, there have been positive developments. A new gas-fired — and infinitely more efficient — power station is being built at Ballylumford. The Scottish interconnector will, I hope, come into operation at the turn of the year, and we have a proposal for another gas- fired power station, which will be located at Coolkeeragh near Londonderry. All of these things, combined with the regulator’s review of transmission and distribution costs, should contribute to a reduction in costs and certainly greater efficiency in the energy system.
Making radical changes will mean dealing with the long-term contracts, and while we are actively pursuing the option of buying out those contracts, it is a very complicated and expensive process. I hope to be in a position to report to the House later in the year.

Mr Seamus Close: Does the Minister agree that Northern Ireland consumers have very little to look forward to in terms of reduced prices until the long-term contracts are dealt with? Can he give us any further details of the position of those negotiations? This is the fundamental issue as regards the high cost of energy in Northern Ireland. Until those uncompetitive contracts are dealt with, the consumer cannot look forward with any real hope to the downward pressure on prices that is required.

Sir Reg Empey: The Member is probably right, but there are a number of things to be considered. It is a matter of trying to open more of the market to competition. The contracts include a specific fuel cost section, and therefore there is a direct linkage between international fuel costs and the price the customer pays. The more efficient the plant, the smaller that component part of the price is, because 80% of what the consumer pays is in generation costs. With brand new plants at Ballylumford and, it is to be hoped, Coolkeeragh, we will have state-of-the-art equipment in place which will be able to generate more elctricity per unit — or per therm of gas — than is currently the case. Additionally, we will have the interconnector.
The Member is correct in that a very bad deal was done in 1991, and we are paying the price for that. There is no point in trying to hide that from the House. I intend that all of these issues — the regulator’s review of transmission and distribution costs; the gas pipelines; the way we treat the contracts and a range of other matters — will be dealt with in the current calendar year. I intend that we will then be in a position to report to the House with a comprehensive package of what it is possible to do. I cannot be more specific than that.
The Treasury will have a role in deciding whether we can deal with the buyouts. That will mean bonds. Bonds have been used as a tool in some other utility buyouts in Great Britain. However, each case has to be dealt with on its merits. We are dealing with very large sums of money, and we have to be aware that we are taking major decisions. We will never get ourselves completely free from this until we deal with the contracts.

Penn Nyla (formerly Courtaulds)

Dr Dara O'Hagan: 4. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to detail any contact between his Department and Penn Nyla (formerly Courtaulds) in Lurgan in relation to impending job lay-offs in the factory; and to make a statement.
(AQO1574/00)

Sir Reg Empey: At the end of March the chief executive officer of Penn Nyla met with IDB officials to outline the steps being taken to sustain the weft knit business. Since then, IDB has been in regular contact with him to review progress, agree actions to help the company and provide practical assistance.

Dr Dara O'Hagan: People who represent the constituency are concerned. The Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment has met trade union representatives from the factory and will meet the management. Can the Minister give details of the investment that the company received from the IDB? There are concerns that machinery in the factory has already been broken down and sold off. Has any public money been used to purchase that machinery, and, if so, will there be any clawback? What has been done with regard to jobs for people who have been laid off? It has been predicted that by the end of August all the employees will have lost their jobs and the factory will be closed. Go raibh maith agat.

Sir Reg Empey: I am familiar with the concerns that the Member raises. Those matters have raised their heads on previous occasions. However, the hon Member will be aware that the company had to be summoned to appear before the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Industry. Perhaps that gives an insight into some of the difficulties that we have in dealing with large corporations. They like to make decisions unfettered in any way, and the only reason that the summons could be issued was that the company had received public money. IDB, as it does in all cases, had to look at the letter of offer under which that public money was drawn down to see if its terms and conditions were implemented. I cannot be more precise. We are watching that type of thing closely.
I raise two other points. We wanted to achieve a successful outcome, and an alternative buyer has been sought, either a management buyout or another company. So far no offers have been received. However, under the circumstances, we are prepared to examine any proposals and treat them on their merits, irrespective of previously agreed arrangements with the existing owners and without the overhang from other offers. If we feel that the letter of offer has not been implemented as was agreed, the potential for clawback exists. However, that is a legal matter, and I cannot go into too much detail here.

Mr Mervyn Carrick: I have noted what the Minister has said. We welcome the fact that the meetings have taken place and that various proposals have been looked at. Nevertheless, how does the Minister propose to minimise the impact of the job losses in Lurgan, and can he say whether the recommendations of the textiles task force will be based on facts and focused on the textile industry rundown in Lurgan?

Sir Reg Empey: Significant progress has been made on the implementation of the Kurt Salmon report. One of the recommendations was that a company should be established among the industry, something we are facilitating at present. An interim chief executive has been identified, and many of the legal technicalities have been completed. I look forward to the early launch of that company, which will help to promote the textiles industry.
I want to make it clear that we facilitate the industry to help itself. We will have to give considerable thought to how we target the selective financial assistance offered to companies. We want to give it to companies that bring forward proposals in line with the Kurt Salmon recommendations. The procedures have been followed in the current situation in Lurgan. As soon as we detect a threat to jobs, the Department of Higher and Further Education is notified, and a team assesses the situation individually with each worker who will be directly affected.
In some cases people decide to retire, but other people require retraining or another job. The Member will also be aware that in his constituency, we have, fortunately, had consistently lower than average levels of unemployment. The claimant count is currently running at 3·6%, which is in the bottom quartile for Northern Ireland. I am optimistic that if it is not possible to find an alternative buyer for the factory, then many of the people there will be able to be redeployed. There is a standard procedure for this, and my Colleague Dr Farren is directly involved in it. If the company cannot be replaced, I hope that as many people as possible will be relocated and retrained.

Tourism Ireland Limited

Mr David Ford: 5. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to detail his plans in relation to the setting up of offices for Tourism Ireland Limited; and to make a statement.
(AQO1584/00)

Sir Reg Empey: The North/South Ministerial Council has decided that the company will have its headquarters in Dublin and a regional office in Coleraine. The board of the company is also currently developing its proposals for offices in key tourism markets. Progress will be considered by the North/South Ministerial Council at the end of the month.

Mr David Ford: I am a little upset that the Minister is unable to be more specific about where the key markets are. It seems that there is a huge need for urgent action on the part of Tourism Ireland Limited. It is obvious we cannot expect that a long-term development programme will deal with the crisis currently arising out of foot-and- mouth disease, but it appears that very little is being done to promote this region for tourism both internally and from GB over this summer. Surely as we can now hope that foot-and-mouth disease is being put behind us, it is incumbent upon Tourism Ireland Limited and the Minister’s Department to do more to actively promote tourism, particularly rural tourism, whether that requires overnight stays or day trips in Northern Ireland.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Is there a question there?

Mr David Ford: I thought that there was, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Can the Minister not give more hope, in the absence of compensation for the great majority of those affected, that his Department will be engaging in strong tourist promotion?

Sir Reg Empey: I do not accept that nothing is being done. Tourism Ireland Limited is not going to be effective in the marketplace until the tourism season in 2002. It has only just been established; it must get its staff together, and it must get agreed marketing material. McCann Erickson has been appointed to work on that. We have seen some preliminary sight of it, but it will not be effective in the marketplace until next year.
The Member will be aware that my Department has made £1 million available for a particular promotion in the short term to deal with the aftermath of foot-and- mouth disease. That is ongoing. It applies in all markets, both locally and internationally. Proportionately, that is two or three times more than is being spent in the rest of the United Kingdom. We will also have access to a small amount of national resource as a consequence of moneys that have been allocated by the Treasury to the British Tourist Authority — we will get a share of that. That share alone would not have been sufficient.
In addition, with my Colleague the Minister for Culture, Arts and Leisure we have supported alternative locally based actions such as the North West Fest. If there are other applications coming forward we will look at those on their merits, but over the next few months we have a rolling programme of specific promotional events. I am sure that if the Member cares to look at the tourist web site, he will see that there is a very ambitious programme ongoing which we hope will contribute towards the minimisation of the losses in the industry over the coming season.

Mr Gardiner Kane: Does the Minister accept that the difficulty with the concept of Tourism Ireland Limited is not so much about offices as about the Republic of Ireland’s ability to hog the tourists who visit attractions in Northern Ireland? What plans are afoot to tackle the problem of tourists who day-trip in Northern Ireland yet base their holidays in the Republic of Ireland and subsequently leave their currency there?

Sir Reg Empey: I am not surprised to see the Member on his feet about these issues, given his particular interest in north County Antrim. The Member has put his finger on the problem, which is that 70% of the people who visit Northern Ireland from overseas come onto the island via the Republic. In recent years there has been a pattern of day-tripping, but with the overnight stays taking place in the Republic. The Member is absolutely right.
He may recall that, in the setting up of Tourism Ireland Limited, it was written into the agreement and understanding of 18 December 1998 that the company has to pay particular attention to the special circumstances of Northern Ireland over the last 30 years. That is written into what might be regarded as the deeds of the company. Any marketing that it does, now or in the future, must therefore take that into account. That particular phraseology is there to prevent precisely what the Member was talking about.
It is not simply a matter of Northern Ireland versus the Republic. It also applies to the north-western part of the Republic itself. You will find great dissatisfaction in places north-west of Sligo and into Donegal. The people there feel that they have not been getting their share of the tourist traffic. It is a question therefore of moving many of the visitors further up the island, and of developing our ability to bring international visitors directly into Northern Ireland via our own airports. That means air links, and, as the Member will be well aware, we are poorly served at present by international destinations. We currently have only a Brussels route and an Amsterdam route. We have no route to Paris and no flight to North America. Negotiations are ongoing to resolve both of those matters, but until that infrastructure is there, we are always going to be fighting a rearguard action. We are acutely aware that that is the real problem, and therefore we have to take steps to counteract it.

Mr John Dallat: I thank the Minister for his continuing interest in Tourism Ireland and his unquestioned efforts to make it a success. Does the Minister understand the frustration that there is locally that this key project appears to be taking an unacceptable length of time to get up and running? Will he assure the Assembly that he is making every effort to fast-track the project, given that it is a key element in our future tourism?

Sir Reg Empey: I appreciate the frustration, but we have asked some very high-calibre individuals to head this organisation. These are people who run chains of hotels and people who understand business.
For example, the deputy chairperson came from Microsoft. They are working as hard as they can. They have had four or five meetings, and I hope to meet them at the end of the month in the Member’s own district. It is my view that resources have been provided. They have had some difficulties with staffing and getting secondments from Bord Fáilte in the Republic, but that is an industrial relations issue. Through the Tourist Board we have supplied all the help that we can. They are working on the material for next year. That is the key thing, because you must have the marketing tool.
Andrew Coppel, who was born and bred in Belfast, is the chairperson, and he has a very clear understanding of the tourism issues. I am confident that when it starts to roll out for the next tourist season, the Member will feel satisfied that we have got matters right and that the market will grow in Northern Ireland.

Job Creation in the North-West

Ms Mary Nelis: 6. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to detail his targeting social need strategies to increase job creation in the north-west, specifically in the Foyle constituency.
(AQO1576/00)

Sir Reg Empey: The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment’s actions aimed at reducing unemployment and increasing employment opportunities for the unemployed and long-term unemployed in deprived areas across Northern Ireland, including the north-west, are detailed in ‘Making it Work’, the New TSN action plan report which was published on 21 March. It is available in the Assembly Library.

Ms Mary Nelis: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.
I thank the Minister for his reply, but I am not sure that we in the Foyle constituency can wait for this to be put into action, given that we have the highest long-term unemployment in the whole of the Six Counties. Fourteen of the most socially deprived wards are located in the Foyle constituency, and this is directly related to long-term unemployment. I ask the Minister to consider setting up a task force in the Foyle constituency to address this long-term unemployment. We talk about it, but no action is ever taken.

Sir Reg Empey: The Member needs to be reassured that I fully understand the situation in the Foyle constituency. As the Member will know, I have visited the area as frequently as I possibly can. I visit the city regularly. I know that my colleague Dr Farren, through his own Department, has been working very hard, and his Department and mine have been co-operating to devise the best measures that we can.
The Member will also be aware that the Programme for Government makes a series of major commitments. Long-term unemployment is still high in the Member’s constituency, but I think it ought to be noted that if you compare the situation today with that of five or ten years ago, there has been progress, albeit insufficient. Nobody can be complacent, but there has been progress.
Indeed, there have been a significant number of industrial developments in the Foyle constituency that we hope will provide the long-term foundations for a resolution of these issues. It is only possible when the opportunities are there. At the risk of taking some time on this answer, I will give the Member an example. When it was indicated that the Coolkeeragh power station might be rebuilt, we formed a group in the city, in conjunction with the Department of Finance and Personnel and others, to try to bring together businesses that could benefit from the £200 million that will be spent on the erection of the power station. We encouraged local businesses to be available to take advantage of the contracts when they came in.
That is the sort of measure that we are trying to take, as well as those that are published in the Programme for Government. I believe that given enough time to work through this Programme for Government, we will see inroads being made into long-term unemployment in that area.

Mrs Annie Courtney: I note the Minister’s response to the previous question, and his reference to Coolkeeragh. I suggest — and I think that he has already indicated this himself — that one significant way in which his Department could positively contribute to overcoming the high levels of deprivation and unemployment, as well as underpinning the policy of targeting social need and equality, would be to confirm when the investment in the new gas pipeline will take place, enabling Coolkeeragh to be built. When is the Minister likely to be in a position to make such a statement?

Sir Reg Empey: The Executive has discussed this matter, and we will be negotiating during the summer with Bord Gáis and Questar, its American partner. They have made an offer, which is currently on the table. We have set up a negotiating team with the Department of Finance and Personnel, the Economic Policy Unit and my own Department, and we will be entering into discussions with the Irish Department responsible for energy and negotiating the best deal that we can possibly get. We will be bringing back proposals in the autumn.
I am hopeful that this can be successfully dealt with, but it does involve a very complicated set of negotiations. I take heart from the fact that we actually have an offer on the table, and that we have something to negotiate about. There is a requirement for additional generating capacity by 2004-05 in Northern Ireland. At present, the only proposal on the table is from the Electricity Supply Board of Ireland (ESBI), and we are actively pursuing it to the best of our ability. The Executive will make a final decision in September.

Mr Derek Hussey: The Minister will realise that the north-west area spreads well beyond the confines of the Foyle constituency and includes a large part of west Tyrone. Does the Minister agree that while we welcome improving economic activity, we also realise that parts of west Tyrone continue to fall dramatically behind the Northern Ireland average?
Can he give assurance that his TSN strategies will address this issue in the greater north-west area, including west Tyrone in general and Strabane District Council in particular?

Sir Reg Empey: There is no way that "Team West Tyrone" are going to let me forget that they are part of the north-west. I sympathise with the Member, because I suspect that behind his question is the fact that he does not anticipate the benefits of gas spreading to Omagh and the surrounding areas. I understand that, but the Member should take heart from the fact that one cannot be sure what route the pipeline coming from the gas field in the west of Ireland might take.

Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment

Degree Courses

Mr John Fee: 1. asked the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment to outline his plans to increase the number of institutes of further and higher education that offer degree courses.
(AQO1596/00)

Dr Sean Farren: I do not have any plans to increase the number of institutes of higher and further education that offer degree courses. Members should be aware that currently 12 of our 17 colleges deliver degree courses, three of them delivering degree courses on a full-time basis for different degrees in their entirety. Members may also be aware — due to several references having been made — of the development of foundation degrees from next September. These will be delivered in the institutes of further and higher education and will mark a significant and very welcome development as far as the involvement of these institutes and the provision of degree programmes is concerned.

Mr John Fee: The experience with the university campus in Armagh has been excellent, and the more opportunity that the people across Northern Ireland have to access foundation degrees and further education, the better.
Can the Minister give any more details of how many additional foundation degree course places there might be in the near future, and at what institutes they will be provided?

Dr Sean Farren: In the first phase, 100 full-time equivalent places will be made available, and I have commissioned eight foundation degree pilot programmes. These are developed and delivered by university-led consortia involving further education colleges and employers. The following further education colleges are involved in developing, and will be therefore involved in delivering, the pilot programmes: Belfast Institute of Further and Higher Education, Newry and Kilkeel Institute of Further and Higher Education the North West Institute of Further and Higher Education, the East Antrim Institute of Further and Higher Education, the Upper Bann Institute of Further and Higher Education, the North East Institute of Further and Higher Education and the North Down and Ards Institute of Further and Higher Education, and Omagh College.

Mr Billy Armstrong: Will the Minister concede that widening the provision of degree courses to the institutes of further and higher education would result in more accessible high level education?

Dr Sean Farren: It is important to underline the fact that in the development of higher education courses in our institutes of further and higher education very strict criteria apply, and these include the appropriateness of buildings and equipment, the experience of staff and the viability as regards student numbers.
With regard to full-time higher education, the Department requires that colleges have a track record of delivering part-time education across at least four vocational areas, viable enrolments in each course and a reasonable total of higher education enrolments expressed as full-time equivalent students. Those critieria are in place in order to ensure that wherever higher education programmes are delivered they are delivered to the highest and most exacting standards.

Queen’s University, Belfast and the University of Ulster (Part-Time Teaching Staff)

Mr David Ford: 2. asked the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment to detail the number of teaching staff employed on a casual or part-time basis by Queen’s University, Belfast and the University of Ulster.
(AQO1581/00)

Dr Sean Farren: The latest available figures relate to the 1999-00 academic year. The Queen’s University of Belfast employed 98 casual part-time academic staff, and the University of Ulster employed 85 such staff.

Mr David Ford: Is it appropriate that such high numbers should be employed on a part-time basis? Is this an appropriate way of recruiting teaching staff to universities? Does the recruitment of so many people on a casual basis make it difficult to meet equality targets?

Dr Sean Farren: The Member must appreciate that the numbers of part-time staff in both institutions are not excessively high and that staff are recruited on the basis of rigorous criteria. Staff have to meet the desired qualification and experience requirements, where experience is relevant. I assure the Member that the colleges are required to observe those criteria. However, it is for colleges and universities to respond to their own recruitment needs.
In some disciplines, staff recruitment is not always easily achieved, particularly in fields where there is competition from the commercial sector. However, our universities ensure that they apply high standards. I do not agree that the figures indicate a worrying trend.

Mr David McClarty: Does the Minister intend to convert many of the part-time posts into full-time positions?

Dr Sean Farren: I am not responsible for such matters; it is for the universities to determine their own recruitment procedures. As Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment I am anxious that when recruiting staff the colleges and universities should meet the highest standards in every area. I am assured that they themselves will determine how to dispose of part-time staff in proportion to full-time staff. That will be judged by colleges and universities according to their needs and circumstances.

Limavady College of Further and Higher Education (Capital Expenditure)

Mr John Dallat: 3. asked the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment to detail his plans for capital expenditure at Limavady College of Further and Higher Education; and to make a statement.
(AQO1590/00)

Dr Sean Farren: The estate of Limavady College of Further and Higher Education is in relatively poor condition, and the college is carrying out an economic appraisal of its accommodation needs. I recently made a ministerial visit to the college and observed at first hand the condition of some parts of the estate. This is why the college is engaged with the Department in developing its plans for the future development of its accommodation needs. When the appraisal is clear, the needs will be considered in the light of available capital resources and other priorities in the sector.

Mr John Dallat: Is the Minister aware that Limavady College of Further and Higher Education plays a key role in the delivery of further education, not only in the Roe valley but beyond that jurisdiction? Can he assure us that when the appraisals are complete every effort will be made to upgrade a college that was sadly neglected during direct rule?

Dr Sean Farren: The House will be aware of my firm commitment to ensuring that everything possible is done to upgrade the accommodation and the facilities in the further education sector. I am aware of the considerable contribution by Limavady College of Further and Higher Education and all other colleges to the educational needs of their areas, Northern Ireland and beyond. Since my recent visit to Limavady College of Further and Higher Education I have been more aware of that than ever.
We will move as expeditiously as resources allow, making good the considerable deficits in estate and facilities that colleges experience.

Ministerial Counterparts (Republic of Ireland)

Mr Eamonn ONeill: 4. asked the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment to outline any contact he has had with his ministerial counterparts in the Republic of Ireland in matters relating to his Department.
(AQO1594/00)

Dr Sean Farren: There are a number of issues that fall to my Department that are the subject of North/South co-operation requiring regular contact with colleagues in the South. The contacts and co-operation include issues such as higher education research, vocational education and training, the mutual recognition of vocational qualifications, tourism training, joint overseas recruitment and European funding issues.
I have had the opportunity to raise these matters in discussion with counterparts in the South, in particular the Minister for Education and Science, and the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. I have also had the opportunity to raise some of these matters at meetings of the North/South Ministerial Council sector bodies on trade and development and tourism.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: Does the Minister agree that continued cross-border co-operation is important in further and higher education, particularly with regard to a better return on resources, the ability to maximise the range and quality of opportunity and access for our students? Can the Minister provide some details of his meetings with the Department of Education in Dublin?

Dr Sean Farren: Since taking office I have had meetings with Minister Michael Woods and his predecessor Micheál Martin, in which we ranged across many of the issues that I referred to in my initial response to the Member.
Contacts have been developing between officials in our Departments since those meetings. There are long-standing contacts between officials dealing with educational matters at higher and further education level and well-established contacts between the officials within the Training and Employment Agency and its Southern counterpart, FÁS.
I come from the university sector, and I am well aware of the formal and informal contacts that have developed over the years. I have been quite surprised at the degree of contact, evident in student flows between North and South at the further education level.
During the course of the visit to Limavady I was surprised at the number of Southern students who are enrolled in some of the courses there. They travel quite a distance to avail of the high standard of the courses that we make available in our further and higher education institutions. Historically, there has been, and still is, a considerable flow of students from North to South. Staff exchanges at various levels also take place.
We are building on a healthy situation. We want to strengthen what has been taking place and to be innovative where development is required.

Dr Esmond Birnie: The Southern Irish universities do not have an equivalent to the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE). Given that they do not get the benefit of such an external benchmarking of their research standards, would the Minister consider suggesting to his Dublin counterpart that something like the RAE be considered for the Republic of Ireland?

Dr Sean Farren: It is hardly my place to suggest to my counterpart in the South how he should benchmark the research initiatives that are funded there. It is evident from the considerable flow of funding into the universities and research institutes in the South that their performance is judged highly. They have their internal systems in the universities for benchmarking research, and I am satisfied that their initiatives ensure high standards. The existence of co-operation, albeit that it might be greater in a number of disciplines, between our institutions and those in the South is testimony to the high regard that academics and researchers here have for the standards down South.

Call Centre Employment: Training Provision

Mr Danny Kennedy: 5. asked the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment to outline training provision for call centre employment.
(AQO1587/00)

Dr Sean Farren: My Department, through its institutes of further and higher education, provides a wide range of courses which are suitable for people wishing to pursue careers in call centres. The Training and Employment Agency, through existing programmes such as New Deal and Bridge to Employment, also contracts with a wide range of training providers to deliver training in customer care, which is the key skill for securing call centre employment.

Mr Danny Kennedy: Will the Minister ensure that there will be adequate levels of pay for those employees and that his Department will also cover issues that affect health and personal safety?

Mr Donovan McClelland: I am not clear as to whether that is an appropriate question to the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment.

Dr Sean Farren: You are quite correct, Mr Deputy Speaker. In taking care of the responsibilities that fall to my Department and to the institutes and training providers with whom we are associated in the delivery of the training referred to in the Member’s question, the highest standards apply.

Childcare Grant

Ms Patricia Lewsley: 6. asked the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment to detail the number of students likely to benefit from the new childcare grant announced as part of the student support package.
(AQO1592/00)

Dr Sean Farren: My officials estimate that around 1,000 students will benefit from the new childcare grant announced as part of the student support package.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: I thank the Minister for his reply and welcome the fact that his student support package addresses childcare. Can he explain why there are inequalities in childcare provision between colleges of further education?

Dr Sean Farren: Before I could give a detailed answer I would require information on the inequalities to which the Member seems to be pointing. I refer to my earlier comments with respect to the questions on Limavady College. My Department is investing considerable sums of money in further education to ensure that the highest standards are attained, whether the money goes directly to courses or to support services such as childcare facilities. We are concerned that these services are adequate to meet need and of the highest standard. If the Member has particular institutes in mind where she feels there are severe inadequacies and which may be in breach of requirements, I will be willing to receive such information and have the situation in those institutes examined.

Mr Jim Shannon: In the light of the Minister’s response and cases in my own constituency, will he actively seek out single parents and mature students who qualify for the childcare grant to ensure that they benefit from it? We have to seek out eligible people and make them aware of the grant rather than wait for them to come to us.

Dr Sean Farren: When I announced a new package of financial and other support for students, I mentioned plans for initiatives in conjunction with the Educational Guidance Service for Adults, the National Union of Students and the Union of Students of Ireland to fully inform potential students — whether they be school-leavers or adults returning to education. This will include information on available courses and the necessary support and advice to help them succeed.

Ms Mary Nelis: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister’s statement that 1,000 students will benefit immediately from this grant. Will the grant awards be based on means testing, and will they be available to single parents in receipt of maintenance awarded through the courts? Will the grant apply equally to male and female student parents?

Dr Sean Farren: The childcare grant is available to parents who care for children below school age, and that applies to male and female carers. Details of their means will be taken into account, individual cases will be judged and applicants will benefit accordingly.

Educational Guidance Service for Adults (East Antrim)

Mr Roy Beggs: 7. asked the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment whether there are proposals to develop an Educational Guidance Service for Adults office and a learningdirect centre in the constituency of East Antrim.
(AQO1578/00)

Dr Sean Farren: The Educational Guidance Service for Adults (EGSA) is seeking to expand its services throughout Northern Ireland, and it plans to open two offices in the Craigavon and Dungannon areas. In the short term, EGSA is collaborating with the East Antrim Institute of Further and Higher Education to provide a service to customers in this area. The provision of learndirect centres is a matter for the University for Industry and its Northern Ireland partners. East Antrim Institute, which has a learndirect centre on its Newtownabbey campus, will be invited to present proposals for the further development of learndirect services in the east Antrim area.

Mr Roy Beggs: I thank the Minister for his answer, but the East Antrim Institute is not in my constituency. There is no further education college in the East Antrim constituency. Will the Minister acknowledge the need for a focal point for continuing education in East Antrim? In the past there has been an absence of education projects from such groups as EGSA. A centre would encourage continuing education and, perhaps, attract additional educational funding from other organisations such as Proteus, which have failed to invest in education in the East Antrim constituency.

Dr Sean Farren: Mr Beggs has frequently asked about the provision in his constituency, and I have highlighted the redevelopment of provision for further education in Larne. It is actively under consideration, and on several occasions the Member has received details from my Department and myself on the investigation of the re-establishment of such provision in Larne. I do not accept that the situation in his constituency is being neglected. The remit of EGSA runs throughout Northern Ireland, and need will be met where it exists.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Mr Byrne has advised me that he will be absent. Question 8 will receive a written answer. Mr Armstrong is not in the Chamber.

Careers Guidance

Mrs Joan Carson: 10. asked the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment to co-operate and co-ordinate with relevant Departments to maximise careers guidance for students engaged in further and higher education.
(AQO1585/00)

Dr Sean Farren: Careers guidance in further education is delivered through a partnership formalised by service level agreements between each institute and my Department’s careers service. Each university has qualified careers staff. I will periodically review the effectiveness of those arrangements to ensure that students are helped to make informed career decisions.

Mrs Joan Carson: The Minister is aware of a real need for students in further and higher education to have an understanding of potential career paths that will optimise their contribution to the employment sector. Will the Minister examine the current student career guidance system to ascertain its effectiveness?

Dr Sean Farren: The question is essentially but not exclusively concerned with the universities’ responsibilities for careers guidance. I am aware from my own experience that both of our universities have highly developed careers advisory services. Those services ensure that students throughout, and particularly towards the end, of their courses are made fully aware of career prospects ahead of them, and of the professional programmes that they need to pursue to enter the careers of their choice.
The provision of careers guidance in further education colleges has come under the remit of the careers review that we have undertaken in conjunction with the Department of Education. My Department is currently examining the report from that review, and it is hoped that decisions will soon be made in the light of its recommendations.

Mr P J Bradley: In his reply to Question 1, the Minister answered both my main question and my supplementary.

Mr Donovan McClelland: You are supposed to ask Question 11.

Mr P J Bradley: As my questions were both answered in the reply to Question 1, I will follow on.
The Minister stated that 100 foundation degree places are to be introduced across the area. What are the intended numbers for each specific college? I particularly want to know about the Newry and Mourne area.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I must advise you that it would have been normal to have asked Question 11, and then asked the supplementary.

Dr Sean Farren: I cannot give a specific breakdown of numbers for each of the colleges that will be involved in the pilot scheme.
In theory, 100 full-time equivalents could amount to almost 200 students. Given that most of the initial courses will be available on a full-time basis, however, it will probably be less. Numbers in the colleges will not be huge, as we have 100full-time equivalents, but this is part of a pilot project which will begin its second year in September. There will then be a detailed ongoing review, which will evaluate the effects and benefits of the introduction of foundation degrees. That will help us to decide their future. We have to remember that foundation degrees are not the only form of higher education provided in institutes of further and higher education.

Association of University Teachers

Mr Kieran McCarthy: 12. asked the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment to detail the current status of pay negotiations with the Association of University Teachers.
(AQO 1580/00)

Dr Sean Farren: The current status of pay negotiations with the Association of University Teachers is a matter for the Universities and Colleges Employers Association as the representative body for higher education employers. It is its responsibility to advance pay negotiations with the Association of University Teachers.

Mr Danny Kennedy: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In respect of your handling of question 11 from MrBradley, I find it unsatisfactory that a Member can raise an entirely new question under the guise of question 11. It was the Minister’s responsibility to link questions1 and 11 had he seen the relevance of that link. It is unsatisfactory for any Member to be allowed to ask an entirely separate question under the guise of one which is advertised.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I am inclined to agree with MrKennedy. Mr Bradley took me by surprise. Time is up.

Social Development

Warm Homes Scheme

Mr Kieran McCarthy: 1. asked the Minister for Social Development to detail the steps he is taking to publicise the Warm Homes scheme.
(AQO 1582/00)

Mr Maurice Morrow: I announced the Warm Homes scheme at the National Energy Action conference on 27March2001. At the same time the Department for Social Development wrote to a wide range of interested persons to draw their attention to the scheme. Future publicity is the responsibility of the Eaga Partnership, which has already contacted voluntary organisations to advise them of the scheme.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: The Warm Homes scheme should target senior citizens — though not exclusively — to prepare their homes for that extra heat which is necessary for winter. We often hear that senior citizens are not getting their full entitlements. Will officers from the Department for Social Development phone or visit all senior citizens to ensure that everyone benefits?

Mr Maurice Morrow: Research has shown the areas of greatest need. The scheme that we now have in place will address that need. It is the responsibility of the scheme manager, which is the Eaga Partnership, to advertise and to make this scheme as widely known as possible. I have no reason to believe that they will not be successful in doing that. On the contrary, I am quite satisfied that all those who are entitled to benefit under the scheme will know about it. We will continue to monitor that to ensure that the people who need the scheme most are aware of it.

Mr Billy Armstrong: Further to his response to the Member for Strangford (Mr McCarthy), can the Minister indicate, in financial terms, the response to the home energy efficiency scheme from my constituency of Mid Ulster? Were there many successful applications?

Mr Maurice Morrow: I do not have figures relating to individual constituencies with me, but I will try to make that information available to the Member. The scheme starts on 1 July 2001 and in its first year will run for nine months. We have funding of £4·38 million for that period.

Mr Oliver Gibson: Can the Minister advise how many efficiency schemes will be processed on 1 July or in the first nine months of operation?

Mr Maurice Morrow: It is anticipated that approximately 4,000 households will be addressed in the first year. The target thereafter is 6,000 in a full year.

Housing Executive Tenants: Installation of Double Glazing

Mr Roy Beggs: 2. asked the Minister for Social Development to detail how many Housing Executive tenants in the constituency of East Antrim have refused the installation of double glazing.
(AQO 1577/00)

Mr Maurice Morrow: I understand that one tenant has firmly refused to have double glazing installed. The Housing Executive is aware of some problems arising from a scheme in the Whitehead area, and a meeting involving the Housing Executive, a local councillor and a representative from the residents’ association took place on 30 May 2001. The Housing Executive is addressing the issues raised by the Member.

Mr Roy Beggs: I thank the Minister for his answer, but I was referring to Dunluskin — a completely different area. I will pass other names to the Department.
Does the Minister support the installation of double glazing where the contractors do not measure the window frames and subsequently resort to block cutting, which gives rise to unnecessary dust and disruption to the home? After installation the windows might remain unplastered for three to four weeks, which is not acceptable. Will the Minister review this current practice? All people would then be encouraged to upgrade their homes by installing double glazing.

Mr Maurice Morrow: It is imperative that any work carried out by the Housing Executive or its contractors is done to the highest standards. The executive generally does a very good job, but there are unacceptable exceptions. The competence of the work and the contractors on any scheme are closely monitored by the Housing Executive. As to the question of whether double glazing should be installed ad infinitum, it is difficult to say yes or no. Every case has to be treated on its merits, and that is the way forward.

Community Groups (Meetings)

Dr Dara O'Hagan: 3. asked the Minister for Social Development, pursuant to AQO 1372/00, to detail (a) the four groups he met with; (b) the seven groups he declined to meet; (c) the criteria for meeting with the four groups selected; (d) the reasons for refusing to meet the other seven groups; and (e) the criteria on which he bases such decisions.
(AQO 1573/00)

Mr Maurice Morrow: I will ensure that the Member receives the requested lists of groups. As to the reasons for meeting — or declining to meet — particular groups, I assure the Assembly that I meet a wide range of people and organisations from all sections of the Northern Ireland community. There are no formal criteria for decisions on requests for meetings. Each case is considered on its merits and in relation to the demands of my other responsibilities. If the Member had a list of all the groups I meet across the community, I have no doubt that she would be quite impressed.

Dr Dara O'Hagan: I thank the Minister for his answer. My questions arose because some community groups that were concerned at being refused meetings had contacted me. I impress on the Minister the need for inclusiveness and the need to ensure that fair and equal treatment be given to all sections of the community. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Maurice Morrow: Whatever faults I may have, I do not think that not trying to reach out and meet groups from all sections of the community is one of them. I assure the House that I try to be as transparent as is humanly possible in all my ministerial duties. I have not, at any time, tried to sidestep or evade any group or organisation that has come to me with real and genuine problems and concerns. I have reached out, and groups and organisations come to me from all sections of the community across the Province.

Mrs Joan Carson: I was interested to hear the Minister’s reply and to see how he is relating to Sinn Féin in answering its question. I find that rather surprising, given that he and his party were instrumental in Sinn Féin’s gaining the Fermanagh and South Tyrone seat in the recent Westminster election. Would it not now be in keeping with the DUP’s new image to meet with all deputations and groups?

Mr Maurice Morrow: I am disappointed that the Member took the opportunity to score a few cheap, snide political points. I, and I alone, offered to and did stand aside in the Fermanagh and South Tyrone constituency. I offered her party the opportunity to ensure that one candidate went forward. It was her —

Mr Donovan McClelland: I must advise the Minister that this is totally inappropriate.

Mr Maurice Morrow: Which was wrong, Mr Deputy Speaker: my answer or the question?

Benefits: Availability

Mr Seamus Close: 4. asked the Minister for Social Development to detail the measures he has put in place to ensure that all those entitled to benefits are aware of their availability.
(AQO 1583/00)

Mr Maurice Morrow: The Social Security Agency realises how important it is that everyone should claim and receive the proper benefit entitlement. The agency ensures that the public is aware of the range of benefits and other services that are available through a number of measures, including a comprehensive range of leaflets, promotion in the media and a benefits enquiry line for people with disabilities, and by working closely with a number of voluntary sector organisations.
Publicity campaigns to signal the arrival of new benefits and to increase awareness of existing ones are regularly undertaken. Some recent measures are: the launch of the agency’s customer charter pack, which includes a guide to all benefits and details of agency locations; the minimum income guarantee campaign, which has given pensioners in Northern Ireland an extra £100,000 per week; the foot-and-mouth disease financial help leaflet, targeted at those most affected by the crisis; and the recently launched guide to public services for pensioners in Northern Ireland.

Mr Seamus Close: I thank the Minister for his reply. However, I understand that about £6 million went unclaimed in 2000. Therefore the various measures that the Minister listed are not working. Does the Minister agree that we really need better education for those people who meet the general public? They should be better educated in more than one benefit. They should change their mindset to such a degree that claimants who come to benefit offices are not seen as a nuisance. Claimants should be given full help, education and assistance in filling in the plethora of forms, and pointed in the right direction. They must be recognised as being the most deprived and vulnerable in our society, rather than often being dismissed and told to go to the Citizens Advice Bureau.

Mr Maurice Morrow: In general, I agree with Mr Close. However, I will outline several things that my Department is either doing or has done. The qualifying conditions for social security benefit are contained in the leaflet ‘Your Guide to Our Services’. That leaflet is incorporated in the Social Security Agency’s customer charter pack. It is also available separately at all social security offices and at the benefit shop in Castle Street.
The leaflet is a signpost document that tells customers the following: who can get the benefit; how to claim; rates of benefit payable; what other help is available; and where more information can be obtained. Other leaflets and claim packs are available from social security offices.
I accept that this information should be as widely available as possible. We have run publicity campaigns, which have had some success. The recent minimum income guarantee publicity campaign has resulted in just over 7,000 pensioners claiming the minimum income guarantee since the campaign was launched in March last year. Of these, just over 4,000 have been successful. That resulted in the average extra payment of £100,000 a week in the hands of pensioners in Northern Ireland. We are getting there, and these figures are sure signs of increased public awareness of what help is available.

Mr Gardiner Kane: What evidence is there that the publicity campaigns have been successful?

Mr Maurice Morrow: The information that I have already given is evidence of the campaigns’ success. Over 4,000 of the pensioners who applied were successful — that represents an extra payment of £23 a week each, which comes to a total of £100,000 extra a week for pensioners. With regard to long-term strategy, the Social Security Agency will be developing a strategy for maximising the uptake of all benefits as part of its targeting social need (TSN) initiative. That will follow on from the introduction of the family resources survey in Northern Ireland, the results of which will, I hope, be available by autumn 2003.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: I commend the Minister on the number of initiatives that he says he has taken on creating awareness. What training do the staff in the benefit offices receive to make them competent in relaying the information to the public? How do they protect claimants’ privacy? Some old people feel that they are begging for something that they are not entitled to, and they often have to speak to people in a reception area or hallway where there is no privacy.

Mr Maurice Morrow: Benefit forms are constantly being reviewed by the Social Security Agency. Work is under way to simplify several claim forms, such as the minimum income guarantee form. Over the next few years, the welfare reform and modernisation programme will see a much simpler and more streamlined application process introduced for all benefits.
Customers can contact their local social security office for help with completing forms. Pensioners and disabled customers can avail of a free telephone line that offers the facility to make a claim by telephone, or arrangements can be made to call at their home. Staff training is an ongoing process and is constantly reviewed to ensure that all staff are competent and capable of dealing with queries that come across the counter on a day-to-day basis.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Ms McWilliams does not seem to be in the Chamber, so I call Mr Mick Murphy.

Housing Benefit

Mr Mick Murphy: 6. asked the Minister for Social Development to detail the number of housing benefit claims currently being processed; and to make a statement.
(AQO 1575/00)

Mr Maurice Morrow: At the beginning of May 2001, a total of 130,935 tenants were receiving housing benefit. Of those, 90,677 were from the public sector and 40,258 were from the private sector. The average length of time taken to process a housing benefit claim is 13 days in the public sector and 23 days in the private sector. Those figures compare favourably with similarly sized local authorities that administer housing benefit in Great Britain. Housing benefit is an important part of the social security system, providing assistance with meeting accommodation charges for those on low incomes.

Mr Mick Murphy: I do not believe that the figures you quoted accurately reflect the time it takes to process applications for housing benefit. What is the cause of the delays? What steps does the Minister intend to take to ensure that the assessment of housing benefit claims is carried out more quickly and in a less complicated way so that delay and complexity will not remain a barrier to payment? Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.

Mr Maurice Morrow: Since 1998 the total number of claims has decreased by some 10,000. During this period the percentage of private sector tenants has increased from 25% to 31% of the total caseload. The average length of time it takes to process a housing benefit claim from the date of receipt to the date of payment is 13 days in the public sector and 23 days in the private sector.

Mr James Leslie: I listened to the Minister’s reply with great interest. I wonder whether, if those waiting in the benefits queue were to treat the Minister in the same way as the crowd he was part of treated the First Minister in Upper Bann last week, he would condone their behaviour?

Mr Maurice Morrow: I am not sure of the relevance of the question. Nevertheless, I am quite happy to answer it. If the Member is referring to my presence at the electoral count in Upper Bann, I was there. However, he should check with some of his own associates to find out my exact role at that event.

Mr Jim Shannon: The Minister mentioned that housing benefit waiting times compared favourably with those across the water. How do current figures compare with those from three years ago? People want to know if there is a bigger drain on the resources than there was three years ago.

Mr Maurice Morrow: Housing Executive figures compare favourably with the larger-sized authorities. As I said, it takes the Housing Executive 13 days to process a claim in the public sector and 23 days in the private sector. In Manchester, it takes 88 days in the public sector and 100 days in the private sector. In Birmingham, it takes 57 days in the public sector and 73 days in the private sector. In Liverpool, it takes 51 days in the public sector and 38 days in the private sector. In Sheffield, it takes 105 days in the public sector and 78 days in the private sector. The Member will find that Housing Executive figures compare very favourably with others.

Northern Ireland Housing Council

Mr John Dallat: 7. asked the Minister for Social Development to detail the cost of overseas trips undertaken in an official capacity by members of the Northern Ireland Housing Council in each of the last five years.
(AQO1591/00)

Mr Maurice Morrow: The cost of overseas trips outside the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland in each of the last five years is as follows: 1996-97: £3,714; 1997-98: £2,079; 1998-99: £7,179; 2000-01: £5,370. No overseas conferences were attended in 1999-2000.

Mr John Dallat: Given that many tenants have waited years for basic repairs, does the Minister agree that the lifespan of the Northern Ireland Housing Council is at an end — particularly since we have a Social Development Committee in the Assembly — and that the money could be better spent on tenants?

Mr Maurice Morrow: The Housing Council has carried out a very useful function in years gone by. If the situation changes we will examine the matter. I have no plans to change the housing delivery and advice structures at the moment.

Mr Oliver Gibson: Has the Minister planned any conferences to pour some balm on the uncomfortable losers who are displaying their ill temper and impetuosity in the form of questions this afternoon?

Mr Maurice Morrow: I would prefer to devote my energies to the job I am doing — looking after the housing programme. I do not get too worried about those who have stupid remarks to make in the Assembly. I would rather deal with those who want to — [Interruption].
I note what the Members are saying, but they should sit on their swords and get on with the job, like the rest of us.

Income Support

Mr John Fee: 8. asked the Minister for Social Development to detail any plans he has to increase help with housing costs for homeowners with a mortgage who make a fresh claim for income support.
(AQO1595/00)

Mr Maurice Morrow: Homeowners should, where possible, have a responsibility to provide for short-term contingencies themselves — for example, through mortgage payment- protection insurance policies. By securing appropriate insurance cover, homeowners can become more self-reliant and avoid situations such as short periods without work that are not covered by the benefit system.
The current income support rules on help with housing costs, which also apply to jobseeker’s allowance claims, were introduced in October 1995. For the majority of people, help with mortgage interest is restricted until they have been on benefit for 39 weeks. Exceptions to this rule are people who took out a mortgage before 2 October 1995, certain vulnerable people who are subject to a shorter waiting period, and people aged 60 and over, whose interest is paid from the start of the claim. There are no plans to reduce the waiting period.

Mr John Fee: I thank the Minister for his reply, although he rehearsed the facts rather than address the question. In the current climate we have regular and unpredictable job losses right across Northern Ireland. Property prices are higher than they have been for a long time, and the greatest fear, particularly for young, new homeowners, is that they will end up out of work very suddenly and lose their homes. Will the Minister not accept that his Department has the lead responsibility in ensuring that mortgage repossessions are kept to a low, that home ownership is kept to a high, and we do not have people thrown out of their houses because of unexpected unemployment?

Mr Maurice Morrow: I have the greatest sympathy with people who get into difficulties with their mortgage repayments. I have spent some 27 years of my life helping people and have arranged many mortgages, so I do have some knowledge about that.
The majority of people making fresh benefit claims are people who have been working. It is reasonable to expect that people in employment who take out a mortgage should make some provision against difficult times such as short periods of unemployment between jobs. Many will have savings or final payments from their employment that will help cover part, if not all, of the mortgage payments during this initial period. I want to re-emphasise that the fresh claims are coming mostly from people who have been working.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Sir John Gorman] in the Chair)

Supply Resolution for 2001–02 Main Estimates

Mr Mark Durkan: I beg to move
That this Assembly approves that a sum not exceeding £4,679,167,000, be granted out of the Consolidated Fund for or towards defraying the charges for Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Northern Ireland Audit Office, the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints, and the Office for the Regulation of Electricity and Gas for the year ending 31 March 2002 and that resources, not exceeding £5,021,262,000, be authorised for use by Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Northern Ireland Audit Office, the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints, and the Office for the Regulation of Electricity and Gas for the year ending 31 March 2002 as summarised for each Department or other public body in columns 3(a) and 3(b) of Table 1.3 in the volume of the Northern Ireland Estimates 2001-02 that was laid before the Assembly on 11 June 2001.
I propose the adoption of the resolution under section 63 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which provides for the Minister of Finance and Personnel to make to the Assembly proposals leading to cash appropriations from the Consolidated Fund. In doing so, I act on behalf of the Executive, and the spending allocations reflect the decisions of the Executive.
The main spending plans were approved by the Assembly during the Budget debate on 18 December 2000. There was, therefore, a period of scrutiny of the proposals between the presentation of the draft Budget on 17 October and the Budget debate on 18 December. Since then my Department and I have sought to provide all the briefing and analysis needed in regard to the proposals. We have also sought to develop procedures for the future, which will improve the scope and detail of the consultative process.
The Budget, as approved on 18 December, has been supplemented by further resources carried forward from 2000-01, and by the first allocations from the Executive programme funds, as I explained in my statements of 12 February and 2 April. The main purpose of today’s motion is to seek the Assembly’s approval of the use of resources by the Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Northern Ireland Audit Office, the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints, and the Office for the Regulation of Electricity and Gas, for the year ending 31 March 2002. This was summarised in the Estimates booklet that was laid before the Assembly on 11 June.
The resolution also seeks the Assembly’s approval of the allocation of a cash sum from the Consolidated Fund for the 2001-02 financial year, as detailed in the Estimates booklet. To ensure that the Assembly, and especially the Committee for Finance and Personnel, had the best possible opportunity to consider the Estimates, drafts were provided a month ago, before the printing process was finalised. We also offered briefing on the significance of the change from cash-based estimates to resource- based estimates, which takes effect this year. That offer still stands, and officials from my Department will provide further briefing on those issues for Members in the autumn.
The amounts of cash and resources covered by today’s resolution are additional to the Vote on Account approved by the Assembly in the Supply resolution debate on 19 February, which was followed by the passage of the Budget Bill. When the amounts quoted in today’s Supply resolution are added to the Vote on Account, the total cash and resources contained in the 2001-02 Main Estimates will amount to some £8,486 million and £9,327 million respectively.
I remind the Assembly of the significance of the Supply resolution for which I seek support today. The resolution is the basis upon which the Assembly authorises the expenditure of Departments, the Assembly, the Northern Ireland Audit Office and other bodies in carrying out their functions. One of the Assembly’s most fundamental responsibilities is to authorise expenditure while holding Departments accountable for the use of this money. This is one of our main means of ensuring that we deliver on the commitments set out in the Programme for Government.
The scope of the debate covers expenditure in 2001-02. The resolution is the means by which Estimates can be examined by the Assembly, thereby implementing the Budget agreed by the Executive and approved by the Assembly last December.
It will pave the way for us to consider the Budget (No 2) Bill, which, subject to the approval of the Assembly, will provide the legal authority for Departments to incur expenditure this year. As such, those steps represent the conclusion of the 2001-02 financial cycle. It is important that a clear distinction be drawn between those processes which are concerned with the current year and the preparatory steps that we are taking towards the development of a Budget for 2002-03, on which I will make a statement to the Assembly tomorrow.
Before I cover the details of the Estimates, I want to acknowledge the confirmation by the Finance and Personnel Committee that appropriate consultation on the spending plans is reflected in these resolutions. I welcome the Committee’s keen and constructive interest in finance issues, and I look forward to further advice and assistance from Committee members throughout the key phases of our financial cycle.
As Members will be aware, 2001-02 is the first year in which Budget allocations and Estimates will be determined and managed on a resource, rather than a cash, basis. The technical side of that transition does not need to take up time today. However, it is important that I draw out some important aspects of the Estimates that differ from the position on the Budget. The Budget as approved in December 2000 concentrated on expenditure in the departmental expenditure limit (DEL). The Estimates include some annually managed expenditure (AME) as well as expenditure that falls within the DEL. The main items that fall into that category are social security benefits, some of which are subject to annual appropriation or authorisation, and others which are charged under legislation to the National Insurance fund. Hence they do not feature in the voting process. Expenditure under the common agricultural policy also falls into the same category, because it is fully funded by the European agricultural guarantee and guidance fund.
As well as those AME items, there are some aspects of expenditure which were nominally attached to the departmental expenditure limit but which are ring-fenced by the Treasury. As we have no discretion on the use of those resources, they have also not been included in the context of our monitoring rounds, even though they were shown in the Budget documents in October and December last year. Those include expenditure under the Peace I programme and the special addition that was provided some years ago to cover the costs of the Moyle electricity interconnector.
I have already mentioned that some expenditure on social security is handled outside the voting system, because there are standing authorisations in the form of specific legislation that allow money to be drawn from the Consolidated Fund or another fund to provide a service. A further example arises when a Department makes a loan under a statutory power. In most cases the issue of the loan will count towards the departmental expenditure limit. However, where there is a standing authorisation for the making of loans outside the vote, the loan would not need specific Assembly approval through the Estimates and Budget Bill system. Some important aspects of the Budget are funded in this way, as distinct from the supply procedure that we are considering today.
The total that determines what we can do is the departmental expenditure limit set by the Treasury. The Budget brings together all the expenditure and revenue that relate to what we can do within that limit to finance public services. The Estimates then set out what that means for the drawing of cash by Departments from the Consolidated Fund and their use of resources in relation to their objectives. I must also emphasise that the convention is that Estimates are not reduced as the year progresses, even if the Department concerned is clear that not all the spending will be required.
By their nature, the figures are estimates. The reason for the Supply resolution is that the Executive and the Departments are seeking authorisation for spending up to the figures quoted in the Estimates. This point is important, because it helps to explain how the figures, which were set out in the Budget planning documents, are ultimately reflected in the amounts that need to be authorised for issue from the Consolidated Fund to cover the approved expenditure. This is complex, but essential, in order to meet the twin requirements that we keep expenditure within the departmental expenditure limit as set by the Treasury, and seek authorisation for no greater amount of cash expenditure than is set out in the Estimates.
The total net resource requirement for the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development is £223million. Approximately £172million is sought in request for resources A. That sum provides for ongoing regional services and support measures, including £73million for development of agriculture and agricultural products industries and for scientific and veterinary services. Approximately £57million, including £2·4million allocated under Executive programme funds, is sought for farm support, enhancement of the countryside, animal disease compensation, and processing and marketing grants, which are totally funded by the European Union. Twelvemillion pounds is for central administration, including information technology and specialist accommodation services, and £9million is for the rural development programme.
Ninemillion pounds is in respect of the EU peace and reconciliation programme and structural funds, totally funded by the EU, and £12million is for non-cash items such as notional interdepartmental charges, capital charges and depreciation costs. The various market support measures administered under the common agricultural policy, totalling £158million, are also accounted for under request for resources A. These are fully funded by the receipt from the EU and, therefore, cancel within the Estimate.
Resources of £51million are sought in request for resources B. This includes £25million for the Rivers Agency, Forest Service and Fisheries Division, and £5 million in relation to central administration, the EU peace and reconciliation programme and the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission. The remaining £21 million is in respect of non-cash items, such as notional interdepartmental charges, capital charges, and depreciation costs.
When the resource requirement is adjusted to a cash basis and capital expenditure is taken into account, the Department is seeking £208million to fund expenditure on the Estimate.
The total net resource requirement for the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure is £76million, an increase of 3% on last year’s final net provision. Those resources, which are contained in a single request for resources, include £24million on expenditure by education and library boards on public libraries, of which £2·3million is for capital works and £0·3million has been allocated under the Executive programme funds. In addition, £9·9million has been provided for the National Museums and Galleries of Northern Ireland. The sum of £8·8million, including £0·7million allocated under the Executive programme funds, has been allocated for the Arts Council of Northern Ireland and other miscellaneous support for the arts, and £1·5million has been allocated for the Odyssey landmark project.
Approximately £4·8 million, of which £0·5 million has been allocated under the Executive programme funds, is for the Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland, and £2·2 million is for the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland.
The sum of £3·4 million is sought for sports. The request for resources also provides £1·6 million for the Northern Ireland Events Company and £0·8 million for the Armagh Planetarium and Observatory. Provision of £3·5 million is needed for Northern Ireland’s contribution to the North/South language body, and £2·6 million for Northern Ireland’s contribution to the Waterways Ireland project is also included. When the resource requirement is adjusted to a cash basis and capital expenditure is taken into account, it can be seen that the Department is seeking cash of some £74 million to fund expenditure on the Estimate.
Moving to the Department of Education, resources of some £1,350 million are sought in request for resources. Schools require £1,023 million for recurrent expenditure by education and library boards and £38 million for boards’ capital projects. The figure also provides for £59 million for capital projects in voluntary and grant- maintained, integrated schools, £148 million for recurrent expenditure in voluntary grammar schools and £34 million for recurrent expenditure in grant-maintained, integrated schools. Some £5 million is being made available under Executive programme funds and £7 million under the European Union’s peace and reconciliation programme.
For resources to cover youth service and community relations programmes for young people, resources of £27 million are being sought. This includes some £18 million for recurrent and capital expenditure by education and library boards, £2 million under the Executive programme funds and £2 million under the European Union’s peace and reconciliation programme. When the resource requirement is adjusted to a cash basis and departmental capital expenditure is taken into account, the Department is seeking cash of some £1,377 million to fund expenditure on the Estimate. In the Estimate for teachers’ superannuation, resources of £80 million are being sought along with a corresponding cash requirement of the same amount.
In the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment the total net resource requirement is £322 million. The sum of £306 million is sought, first, to cover the Department’s economic support and regeneration measures. This includes £123 million to help the Industrial Development Board to attract and support industrial development in Northern Ireland and £28 million for local enterprise to assist in developing, strengthening and improving the competitiveness of the important small firms’ sector. Also included in this request for resources are £23 million to support the tourist industry and £26 million to increase industrially relevant research and technology in industry.
In this request for resources, which covers the Department’s regulatory services, the sum of £16 million is sought. When the resource requirement is adjusted to a cash basis, and capital expenditure taken into account, the Department is seeking £306 million to fund expenditure on the Estimate.
Turning now to the Department of the Environment, a total net requirement of some £112·8 million is being sought, together with £2·5 million for capital investment. This is a significant increase over the resources available last year, reflecting the need to resolve historical underfunding of the Department’s functions. Around £9 million of the new funds will be used to help meet international environmental obligations, including the development of a new strategy for the disposal of waste.
The remainder of the increase, some £3 million, will be directed in a variety of ways, including assistance to district councils, the continuing effort to reduce road casualties and support for the planning process. When the resource requirement is adjusted to a cash basis and capital expenditure is taken into account, the Department is seeking almost £103 million to fund expenditure on the Estimate.
The Department for Regional Development’s Estimate comprises two requests for resources with a total net requirement of £1,384 million, together with £173 million to meet direct departmental investment in capital projects. Requests for resources to cover the roads, transport and strategic planning functions of the Department with related central administration amount to just under £915 million, of which almost £692 million is attributable to non-cash costs such as depreciation and capital charges, substantially in respect of the road network.
Provision is also made for capital expenditure of some £63 million, mainly by the Roads Service, and this includes an initial allocation of approximately £2 million from Executive programme funds to enable four priority road schemes to progress.
On the transport side, the request for resources includes the additional £20 million approved in the Budget to fund capital expenditure by the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company to bring the railway network up to modern safety standards. This is included in the grants column on the resource side of the estimate. Almost £14 million is needed for other railway services and some £20 million for road passenger services, including concessionary fares.
Requests for other resources relate to the provision of water and sewerage services, for which a total net amount of slightly over £469 million is required. This includes some £5·5 million made available in the Budget approved by the Assembly in December 2000 to meet the additional cost associated with the Kinnegar waste water treatment works and alternative means of sludge disposal. Depreciation and capital charges amounting to £367 million are also catered for.
The £110 million needed for capital investment in the water supply and sewage treatment and disposal infrastructure includes the extra £14·5 million allocated in the Budget and £1 million for flood prevention work allocated from the Executive programme funds. After accruals to cash adjustments are made, the Department for Regional Development’s net cash requirement for the year is just over £509 million.
Turning to the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment, the total net resource requirement is £604 million. Some £396 million is being sought, which includes over £147 million for colleges of further education, £167 million for universities and colleges of education, and net resources of £81 million and capital provision of £95 million for student support, including provision for new arrangements emerging from the recent review of student support.
Some £208 million is sought, which includes £42 million to provide 15,000 places in a range of employment and training measures, mainly within the New Deal initiative, for 18 to 24-year-olds and the long-term unemployed. This will also provide for the introduction of an enhanced New Deal for the over-25s from April. Over £66 million is to provide over 12,000 places under the Jobskills training programme, and a further £14 million will be spent on other training and temporary employment programmes providing some 3,000 places for long-term unemployed adults who are not eligible for the New Deal.
When the resource requirement is adjusted to a cash basis and departmental capital expenditure is taken into account, the Department is seeking £662 million cash to fund the expenditure in the Estimate.
Over £2,060 million is sought for the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. That figure includes £1,968 million to be spent on delivering an effective, high-quality health and social care service to people in need, £57 million for fire services and £34 million for departmental administration. When adjusted for capital payments and non-cash items, the net cash requirement is just over £2,124 million. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety’s Main Estimate identifies £48·6 million to meet the cost of the health and personal social services superannuation scheme. The net cash requirement for that estimate is also £48·6 million.
The Department for Social Development has sought £2,473 million for resources A, which covers the Department’s social security and child support programme. That figure is made up of non-contributory and income- related benefit expenditure of £2,303 million, £145 million for administration and £25 million for non-cash items such as notional interdepartmental charges, capital charges and depreciation costs. Included in the administration cost is £18 million to enable the Department to take forward the welfare reform and modernisation programme.
The Department for Social Development is seeking £266 million for resources B, which covers the housing programme. That figure includes programme expenditure of £260 million, administration costs of £2 million and £4 million for non-cash items. When net borrowing and the Housing Executive’s rent and capital receipts from house sales are taken into account, the gross resources available for housing will be over £600 million.
In its request for resources C, which covers the urban regeneration and community development programme, the Department for Social Development is seeking £73 million. That figure includes programme expenditure of £57 million, administration costs of £6 million and £10 million for non-cash items. In programme expenditure, £30 million will be provided to promote and implement a comprehensive approach to physical and social regeneration, and £8 million will be provided for grants to voluntary bodies. Under the European Union peace and reconciliation programme, £16 million will be made available, of which £12 million will be funded from European Union receipts. When the resource requirement is adjusted to a cash figure and capital expenditure is taken into account, the Department for Social Development is seeking £2,773 million to fund the expenditure in the Estimate.
The Department of Finance and Personnel has sought a total net resource of £133 million. For resources A, the Department has sought £23·4 million to maximise the benefit to Northern Ireland of public expenditure, including European Union funding. For resources B, the Department has sought £93·7 million to support public sector business performance. For resources C, the Department has sought £16·4 million to administer specialised public services including Ulster Savings Branch, General Register Office, maintenance of the valuation list for rating purposes, Rate Collection Agency, Office of Law Reform, Land Registry and Lands Tribunal for Northern Ireland. When adjusted for capital and non-cash items, the net cash requirement is £124·6 million.
On superannuation, the Department of Finance and Personnel is seeking £18·5 million to cover the payment of pensions and lump sum benefits to those covered by the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme. The net cash requirement for this Estimate is £18·4 million.
For the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, total resources of some £32 million are sought. Some £13·1 million is to support the Executive in making and implementing well-informed and timely policy decisions and improving public services, while £18·7 million is to promote equality of opportunity, human rights and improved community relations and to meet the needs of victims. When adjusted for capital and non-cash items, the net cash requirement is £32 million.
The Northern Ireland Assembly is seeking £37·7 million to cover Members’ salaries and expenses and the Assembly Secretariat. The net cash requirement for this Estimate is £38·8 million.
I remind the Assembly that the spending plans that we are debating today derive from the first Budget cycle for which the devolved institutions have been solely responsible. We have collectively risen to the challenge of looking afresh at what our priorities should be, and at the social and economic outcomes that we wish to achieve through public expenditure.
Through the Programme for Government we have established a number of important priorities upon which we will wish to build our policies and develop our thinking further. These include meeting our equality obligations and giving proper recognition to need through targeting social need and the priority areas and initiatives that will attract additional funding through the Executive programme funds.
In commending this Supply resolution to the Assembly, it is right that we should reflect on the importance of being able to make these decisions in a devolved Assembly for a complete financial year for the first time. It is also appropriate that we ensure proper levels of management and control over the use of these resources so that they give maximum effect and deliver the highest quality and the greatest range of services possible for the citizens of Northern Ireland. I beg to move.

Mr Francie Molloy: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his detailed account of the Supply resolution and for the opportunity to contribute to this debate as Chairperson of the Finance and Personnel Committee.
Due to the suspension of the Assembly last year, the Committees had little time to consider the Main Estimates on the Supply resolution. This year there was disruption because of the Westminster and local government elections. There has, however, been limited time for the Committees to scrutinise their departmental spending plans.
The Finance and Personnel Committee questioned the Department’s officials on three occasions on the Main Estimates, as proof copies became available. The Minister has today given a detailed account of the Supply resolution. The Committee welcomed the Minister’s proposal that the Committees should have the opportunity to scrutinise and focus on the Supply resolution to ensure that they were content that it reflects the needs of their respective Departments in the Programme for Government. The Committee advised the Minister of its preference to present the Executive funds as a separate functional line within the request for resources, as this is the case for expenditure such as the European Peace programme.
However, the Finance and Personnel Committee has expressed concern at the complete absence of prior consultation with the Assembly Committees regarding how to allocate the funds that become available through the monitoring rounds. These allocations are simply presented to the Assembly as a fait accompli, with no opportunity for the Statutory Committees to bring any influence to bear on how they are spent.
I suggest that the way in which in-year monitoring is handled should be re-examined. The procedures that were adopted during the direct rule era have continued on and carried across without serious consideration having been given as to whether they are appropriate in new circumstances. In the Committee’s opinion these procedures are far from being appropriate. A revised arrangement is needed in which the Department of Finance and Personnel anticipates the likelihood of additional resources becoming available as a result of the in-year monitoring. The Assembly Committees could be given advance information about the scale of the funds and their availability for reallocation, and their views could be sought in relation to how these funds could be reallocated, before the Executive Committee takes its final decision.
I speak for all departmental Committees when I say that the Committees must be fully consulted on future spending plans, including related financial matters such as the spending review, the regional rate, and the European Union structural funds. This should be undertaken early in the year to ensure that the Committees can make an effective contribution.
The Committees can demand this within the existing structures. Each Committee has the right to question its Department on what bids it is making and how it proposes to spend the money. Additionally, there is a duty on each Department to ensure that its respective departmental Committee has the information it needs to perform its statutory role of scrutinising, considering and advising on the departmental Estimates.
I refer to one of the principal points raised in the Committee for Finance and Personnel’s report with regard to the Budget proposals in November. The Committee suggested that steps needed to be taken to reassess the application of the Barnett formula with particular reference to its inability to address the present infrastructure deficit, the low population density across most of our region and, significantly, social need and deprivation. We suggested that the Minister look again at a joint approach with our counterparts in Scotland and Wales. With the involvement of the Committees a co-ordinated approach could be made to the Treasury.
I would like to impress upon the Minister the overriding need to agree procedures for the handling of the annual financial cycle. The Committee for Finance and Personnel is extremely concerned about the Minister’s proposal for the handling of the early stages of the public service financial cycle.
It is clear in the Belfast Agreement and reiterated in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 that the Committees have a statutory duty to advise Ministers in the formulation of policy. The role of the Committees in relation to the preparation of budgets is a central theme in their work. However, in this area it appears that the Executive Committee and the Department of Finance and Personnel are paying lip service to the functions of the Committees. It is clear that the various Departments have been told not to discuss their bids and proposals for the 2002-03 financial year with Committees until tomorrow’s announcement by the Minister of Finance and Personnel. This effectively prevents Committees from becoming involved with their Departments’ crucial stage of development of financial policy. The involvement of Committees in early consultation is crucial in planning ahead.
In virtually all other areas my Committee Colleagues are content with the procedures proposed by the Minister of Finance and Personnel. We still question the issue of early consultation. The success of future procedures depends on the ability of Committees to become involved in the early formulation of financial policy by individual Departments. To my knowledge there has been no coherent argument put forward to justify the withdrawal of rights of Committees to obtain policy papers relating to the bidding process, to be consulted and to have their views taken into account.
This situation is unacceptable to me and to the Committee, as it is to other Committee Chairpersons and members. I ask the Minister to look at this again. With this proviso in mind, I am content to recommend the Minister’s Supply resolution to the Assembly.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: My Committee met on Friday 15 June and agreed that I should speak on its behalf in this debate. This Supply resolution allows consideration of the 2001-02 Main Estimates. Committee members received papers, including proof copies of these Estimates, in mid-May. At a meeting on 18 May Committee members agreed that their main interests in exercising their statutory powers regarding budgets lay in budget bids and allocations specifically related to the Department, rather than in the overall format and presentation of Estimates and general financial procedures. They therefore passed no comment on the proof copies of the Main Estimates. On Friday, however, members compared the final estimates with the plans previously tabled in the Programme for Government and the announcements regarding Executive programme funds.
Members were reassured by the Department’s explanation of the differences in the figures, due mainly to the change from cash to resource terms. The Committee noted the inclusion in the Estimates of £2·4 million for Executive programme funds in this year, and it was content that this reflected announcements made by the Minister of Finance and Personnel.
Through the Executive programme funds the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development has secured important resources additional to those agreed in the original Budget. At that time the Committee supported the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development’s unsuccessful bids under farm waste management, nutrient management and organic farming.
The Committee, having considered the draft LEADER programme last October, also welcomed the additional funding for the LEADER+ programme. However, when considering the Department’s Executive programme funds bids, the Committee noted that here had been no bid for funds to implement early retirement or new entrants schemes for farmers. These are imperative for the future of farming and for farming to remain the main job provider in Northern Ireland. It has long been the Committee’s view that such schemes are needed urgently. The foot-and-mouth disease crisis has simply brought this home, and we will be looking for action on this front — not pleasant words or promises on the dark horizon, but real action for the farming community in this year’s and next year’s budgets.
Bad news for the fishing industry seems to be coming from Europe. Our fishing industry has already been decimated. There is an urgent need to deal with the decommissioning of boats in a realistic way. Why should fishermen, who have been given money to keep their boats in seaworthy condition to face bad weather conditions, be invited to pay back what they have received before they get any compensation whatsoever? That is an insult to the fishing industry.
While the Committee welcomes the increased funding for the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development for 2001-02, members agree that there should be no illusion in the Assembly, as quoted in the Ulster press, that the farmers are the big winners in this Budget. That is not a fact.
Farmers will need significant additional help, and, if we are realistic about keeping our farming industry, this year’s resource allocation can be seen only as a beginning.

Dr Esmond Birnie: I will start in my capacity as Chairperson, and then speak on behalf of my party.
I note that in the Estimates relating to the Department of Further and Higher Education, Training and Employment, the allocation for central administration appears to have increased considerably this year in comparison to the previous year, from £27 million to £37 million. The justification for that cannot simply be the cost of introducing the new Department, as such changes would have already fed through the system. I wonder whether this is the result of reallocations under different definitions, or if it is a real change in administrative costs. That might be a cause for legitimate concern, both for the Committee and others.
I want to make two other points on the estimates allocated to the Department of Further and Higher Education, Training and Employment. These remarks will be based on a report published last week by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The report, ‘Education at a Glance’, provided statistics for all OECD members — basically, the Western economies — and made two points that are relevant to the situation in Northern Ireland.
First, of all OECD members, the UK has the largest number of 21-year-olds graduating from university. Northern Ireland has a considerably higher so-called participation rate amongst its young people than the UK average. That is a cause for some satisfaction. However, the Minister will not be surprised that I will not say that everything is fine. There are some worrying issues that continue to require attention, and hence there are implications for the allocation of money to our universities and other parts of the Department.
There is a question mark over whether that high level of participation in Northern Ireland has been compatible with the maintenance of quality standards. Certainly, as in the rest of the UK, the cost per unit of output in higher education has been squeezed over the last 10 or 15 years, and there is a resultant strain — sometimes a considerable strain — on staff and students.
Moreover, although Northern Ireland has a considerable proportion of 18-to-21-year-olds in higher education, around one quarter cannot stay here because there are insufficient places. While there has been some improvement in that regard, the need for increased numbers of places will have funding implications for the future.
Secondly, I want to address the area of adult basic skills.
The OECD report also showed that while the United Kingdom has a very good record of producing a high number of university graduates relative to the younger population, it also has the infamous position of being near the bottom of the OECD league with respect to the proportion of the working-age population who do not have basic numeracy or literacy skills. In this regard, Northern Ireland is no different from the United Kingdom average.
On behalf of the Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment Committee I welcome the funds that have been allocated to deal with this problem. I also welcome the Executive programme fund moneys, but I put down a marker to say that those funds are probably inadequate, given the scale of the ongoing problem. It is a major social and economic issue that must be tackled.
I will now make some more general remarks. The motion concerns the fate of up to £5billion, which is a considerable sum of money. As the Minister said in his opening remarks, it is a demonstration that we have, thankfully, moved away from the direct rule system, wherein such moneys would have been dealt with in an entirely different manner.
No one of any sense ever argued that the introduction of devolution per se and the introduction of these new arrangements to deal with the authorisation and accountability of public money would immediately and necessarily lead to Northern Ireland’s becoming a land flowing with milk and honey. However, what can be reasonably argued is that we now have a process where the quality of decision-making is improved relative to what happened under direct rule. That improvement, while subtle, will, in the long run, create an economic and, ultimately, financial benefit which will exceed the considerable costs of running this Administration.
From time to time, the Executive will make mistakes in the allocation of money, but the point in comparison to direct rule is not that mistakes are not made, it is that those mistakes will, I hope, be corrected more rapidly than was the case before 1999. Today we are considering £5billion expenditure in the Northern Ireland block, but whatever happens to the Barnett formula it would be unwise to assume or bank on any big jump — much though we might like it — in the amount of public money provided per capita. That is not at all likely. The imperative is, and no doubt always will be, one of a careful stewardship of our resources. I support the motion.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: I thank the Minister for his in-depth examination of the Supply resolution. We were very glad of his grasp of the financial situation, because at times it seemed quite expansive to me. The Committee welcomes the additional allocations in the Budget this year in respect of libraries, health and safety in sports grounds, the languages body and improved access to, and participation in, the arts by young people and those who are most disadvantaged in the community. As we have pointed out already, the Department’s total allocation is modest compared to its assessment of its need for this year.
The Committee hopes that the Department will fare better in 2002-03. We, like all other Committees, have aspirations in that regard, although we have not yet been informed of what those needs are.
We were also glad that the Executive programme funds provided much-needed resources — totalling £7 million over three years — in critical areas, including some that we have pushed very strongly for. One example is the £400,000 to be spent this year on beginning the process of buying out the commercial fishing nets around the Northern Ireland coastline. As I have said before in the House, the impact of this measure in arresting the decline in the North Atlantic salmon population in our rivers will be enormous.
There is also £300,000 additional expenditure to begin work on the vital and imaginative Northern Ireland electronic libraries project.
Our Committee has expressed its concern to the Department that following negotiations nothing was included for the safety improvements of existing motorcycle road racing facilities. Again, I take the opportunity on behalf of the Committee to remind the House and the Minister of Finance about this issue, which has been the subject of much debate in the Committee, the Department and the community. It is an issue requiring urgent attention, and it is one in which small amounts of funding could go a very long way.
The Committee is also concerned that the current year’s funding for the arts is so low. The Minister referred to it as an improvement in expenditure. For a couple of months, we have been taking oral evidence in our inquiry into cultural tourism and the arts, and it is clear that this area is very poorly funded despite the tremendous potential and talent that exists in all aspects of the arts in Northern Ireland. I am amazed that there are so many enthusiastic and committed people in the arts. With a small nudge in the right direction, that potential could achieve a tremendous amount for the whole community and could help to create sustainability.
The closure of the Navan Centre has very seriously concerned the Committee, and it would be remiss of me not to mention it. The main reason given was resource problems. The Committee has asked for a meeting with the Minister to go through the detail of the situation, and I do not want to pre-empt that. However, this is as good an opportunity as any to make a point on behalf of the Committee. A pre-emptive move such as this closure, without a proper examination — at least, as far as we are aware there was no proper examination — of the circumstances that led to that decision seems to have been very hasty indeed. It came towards the end of the foot-and mouth disease crisis, when one might have hoped to see an upturn in visitor figures. Considering the importance of that facility for Northern Ireland, the whole island, and internationally, it is a very abrupt way of dealing with a situation.
As we all know, once something is closed it can be very difficult to get it up and running again. Is there any possibility that the Minister of Finance might have an idea of how to handle this type of crisis with support until such times as a proper publicly accountable examination can be carried out to ensure that such decisions are not too hasty?
The Committee also shares the view of the Chairperson of the Finance and Personnel Committee and other Chairpersons that finding adequate time for consultation is problematic. I recognise that time laid aside for consultation can be freely interfered with by events such as elections. I applaud the Minister on his clear attempt to improve on last year’s timescale. As we should also continue to look at ways in which we could make the timescale even better, I am glad that the Minister announced that intention earlier.
In general, the Committee welcomes and supports this stage of the Supply resolution.

Mr Jim Shannon: I want to focus on the shortfall that will affect the road system and the education system in my constituency and on its periphery, despite the proposed increase that the Minister spoke of.
Many of us in the Ards borough and on the Ards Peninsula sat by while road improvements took place elsewhere. That must be proactively addressed. It is all very well for people to say that the Minister for Regional Development can do that. On the contrary, he can only do so if he is given the funding. Unfortunately, the Minister of Finance and Personnel’s statement estimated that the increase for the Department for Regional Development should amount to 2·58%. Obviously that is of great concern to us, because that 2·58% could be used in the Strangford constituency alone.
Our roads have continued to deteriorate and are now in the worst condition seen for many decades. Last winter saw the Ards borough road network in especially bad straits. While some improvement work has been done, the number of serious potholes in the area has highlighted the need for more attention. It is clear to any regular car user that the deterioration of the roads is ever-increasing, to the extent that drivers may be unable to control their vehicles.
The Roads Service has a number of appointees whose duty it is to locate and mark parts of the roads which need to be repaired. A great deal of the deterioration appears to have been missed. The Department seems to be playing catch-up with the amount of repairs that are needed to the roads in my area. This must be addressed.
In addition, the Roads Service was allocated only about half the amount needed to maintain the road network. Divisional road managers in the service are currently preparing proposed road maintenance programmes for 2001–02. They will inform councils about that programme at the end of June. The Roads Service advised me that the focus will be on the structural maintenance of the road network through carriageway resurfacing and surface dressing, along with the repair and augmentation of the road drainage system.
Will there be adequate funding for the Roads Service’s proposals? My constituents and I are worried that we will again find that the roads in the Ards borough and the Strangford constituency fall far behind those in other parts of the Province. My Colleague Mr Gibson always tells us that the roads in west Tyrone are the worst, but if he comes to the Ards Peninsula he will see what bad roads are.
As a result of the inability to cope with repairs, the Department for Regional Development hears a litany of compensation claims. Over the past months, an increasing number of my constituents in Strangford have come to the advice centre in Frances Street with complaints about the state of the roads, the damage caused to vehicles by poor road conditions and the length of time they must wait to obtain compensation.
Some have been waiting for more than six months for compensation claims to be properly processed despite the fact that the average waiting time is five and a half months. There is something seriously wrong if the claims can not be processed on time. Changes need to be made as soon as possible to make the system more efficient so that the Department can give the public a satisfactory level of service.
Our roads are disintegrating as a result of gross underfunding, and the number of claims for compensation reflects the dire nature of the situation. In 1999-00, 1,702 compensation claims were submitted in the area that I represent. In 2000-01, 2,094 claims were submitted which is a rise of almost a quarter.
Mr McCoubrey of the Roads Service stated that
"Roads are the backbone of Northern Ireland’s social and economic life".
In spite of this, his Department, because of its lack of funding, has been unable to grasp the nettle. We are desperately seeking to attract business and employment to the area, but I am sure that the poor condition of the roads has been a major factor in the failure by interested parties to secure investment. We need to ask why people who have come to our constituency with a view to developing factories or businesses there have not stayed.
I have lobbied the Department on several occasions, and I will continue to do so. However, Members, and Mr Durkan in particular, must add their voices to the list of concerned parties. Perhaps Mr Durkan can release the necessary funding. The situation is wholly unacceptable. After ten years of lobbying, the main route between Portavogie and Ballyhalbert has finally been upgraded. Such delay is unwarranted, and the state of disrepair is unparalleled. That message must be made very clear.
The situation is such that the Department’s commitment to providing and maintaining a satisfactory road network and its compensation procedures must be questioned. We must ask why there has been such underfunding of roads that their deterioration is increasing the number of compensation claims. The Minister for Regional Development has assured me that he will be pressing for further funding. However, beyond the 2·58% increase, what funding can the Minister allocate to our area?
I will highlight areas in my constituency where there is insufficient funding for education. The education budget has been increased by 9·7%, and this is to be welcomed, but will any of that money be spent on the people that I represent? In the mid-Down area, which includes part of the area Mr ONeill represents, most people, especially those with children who are approaching secondary school age, are aware of the difficulty in obtaining school places. They are also aware of the public pressure for the reopening of Killyleagh High School.
The cases of pupils who were refused admission to Saintfield High School have been well documented by the media. As a result of the fundamental problem of insufficient places, weaknesses have filtered through all aspects of the transfer procedure. As a result the criteria used in the area, and especially in Saintfield, to allocate places have become inefficient and profoundly unfair. In other areas there are no such problems, and criteria can be used successfully without alienating or offending anyone. In Saintfield, however, the use of the same criteria over the past few years has resulted in prejudice against some local children.
Four years ago the annual intake to Saintfield High School was cut from 90 to just over 60. Given that the aim is to address the competition for school places, it would have been wiser to increase the percentage of local pupils who attend the local high school. Unfortunately, a situation has arisen whereby children who have family ties with the school travel from Belfast, Comber and Downpatrick, while some children from Saintfield are turned away.
Flexibility is needed to deal with the problems, and finance must be put in the right pockets to ensure that these issues are addressed. To date, the criteria have been applied so rigidly that pupils’ education is being put in jeopardy. The heart of the problem lies with the closure of schools in the area, and until this is addressed a system is needed to accommodate local pupils, because they deserve better. Without such action the problems can only get worse.
If the people of Newtownards and district are not to be exposed to the same crisis in secondary education as we have witnessed in mid-Down, it is essential that Scrabo High School be retained. There is already competition for places at Movilla High School and Regent House Grammar School in the area, and it is clear that within the next five to ten years the problems concerning secondary education places in Newtownards will continue to grow. We witnessed the same short-sightedness on the part of the board towards Killyleagh High School, when education standards were not maintained so that a few pennies could be saved.
The situation in mid-Down has now reached crisis point, with so few secondary places available that students are forced to travel to either Downpatrick or Comber to receive their education. At least we still have the option of reopening Killyleagh High School. To continue with the sale of Scrabo High School is utter lunacy. It may save a few pounds in the short term, but it will cause pain and anxiety for many local parents in the not-too-distant future.
In the same vein, special schools throughout Northern Ireland require increased funding if they are to meet their current demands. There are real shortfalls in special needs education for children in the Ards area. A wee bit more funding for Killard House Special School would be sufficient to bring in another class and ensure that the special educational needs of the children in the area are addressed. That can only happen if the funding is there. That 9·7% of the education budget must go where the need is. There is a need for secondary education in the Ards Borough Council area. There is a need in Strangford, and we should examine that.
The plight of the non-maintained sector has been directly precipitated by the openly prejudiced behaviour of the Minister in command of the Education Department in ignoring the needs and the requirements of the state sector, preferring instead to give priority to the maintained and integrated sectors. I fear that the crisis in education will continue until he is removed from office.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: It is very important that we are discussing and approving this Supply resolution today, because only a few years ago this scene would have been unimaginable. We are working together across all parties — and I stress all parties — on issues that unite rather than divide us.
We know that the resources we get from the Treasury are not sufficient to meet the needs of our society, and so does the wider public. We also know that the rates are one of the few sources of funds for health, education, roads and the other services so badly needed by our people. We all hate the rates but we should realise how much we actually need them, because this is real politics. What can we do when our only way of raising revenue is through the rates? We can pretend, score political points and ignore the reality, or we can accept that however unpalatable it may be, we need them.
We also need to develop other areas of funding and efficiency so that we can reduce our dependence on the rates. It is important that we approve the Supply resolution, but it is also immensely important that we support and approve the action of our Finance Minister. He does a difficult and complex job fairly and professionally. Even his sternest critics would commend his professionalism on these issues.
However, it is insufficient to merely congratulate from these Benches. All of us in this Assembly, in the Committees and in the Executive must work ceaselessly in pursuit of the goals of the community. We need to increase the resources available for allocation to meet the needs of our people. Therefore we should be watchful of expenditures that do not meet the priorities that we know exist. We must continually question the use of resources in every Department and ask whether such usage represents value for money. We must strive to find innovative ways of funding our services, not just through the private finance initiative or public-private partnership, but also through using not-for-profit organisations to deliver services in a way that ensures professionalism and, at the same time, derives other benefits in terms of secondary goals.
We must ensure that our public procurement is used in ways that not only satisfy a need but also, where possible, liberate opportunity for the people and the economy. There are many ways in which we can wage war on need, utilising resources more efficiently and effectively, and thereby maximising the return to our people. We need to explore these, no matter how small. We can be rightly proud and happy with this Budget and the increases achieved, but we cannot be complacent or rest on this success. We must build and innovate, develop and continuously improve our activities. We need to get behind Mark Durkan, the Minister of Finance and Personnel, and support and encourage his efforts as he leads this Administration’s effort to secure more resources, both from the Treasury and through actions internal to Government.
I support the Supply resolution and ask this House to do the same. To build the resource base for the future society needs this approach, and the people demand it.

Sir John Gorman: One Member has withdrawn, leaving only three others to speak. Minister, how long will you require for winding up?

Mr Mark Durkan: I do not know yet.

Sir John Gorman: We can continue until 6 o’clock, but we must finish then and resume the debate tomorrow. However, we have 45 minutes remaining, and it is possible we might finish it now.

Mr Derek Hussey: Mr Deputy Speaker, can I assure you, the Minister and the House that I will be extremely brief.
I have to agree with much of what Patricia Lewsley had to say. We cannot ignore reality. I doubt there is anybody in this House who does not enjoy the opportunity that the Assembly has afforded us to look at and control our own Budget. It is a great pity that we all know we are facing a threat to the continuation of this. I appeal to those who pose that main threat to this institution to do what is expected of them in the agreement — to start the process of decommissioning of weapons and allow us to continue here with proper government for Northern Ireland.
I would like to say to Mr Shannon that I am in total agreement with his Colleague Mr Gibson. In the west Tyrone area we do have the worst roads in Northern Ireland.

Sir John Gorman: I was under the impression that he has not spoken yet — perhaps I am wrong.

Mr Derek Hussey: I am talking about previous addresses to the Assembly. We are totally together, and I believe we were called "Team West Tyrone" earlier in the Chamber.
There is a threat to the roads network throughout Northern Ireland. A danger may exist in the future strategy of concentrating on the main transportation corridors, and the rural network could suffer through that. Like Mr Shannon, I appeal for the Minister of Finance and Personnel to ensure that the regional development budget is sufficient to ensure that the total transport infrastructure is dealt with in a proper way. It should not be allowed to constantly go down, down and down to the point of becoming unreasonable.
I am seeking clarification from the Minister on the subject of European funds, which he mentioned with regard to one or two Departments. Indeed, in respect of his own Department he mentioned a sum of money that struck me as being laid aside as pump-priming. What additional funding does the Minister expect to come through that he will have to deal with? Also, can he assure Members and clarify to the House that the Assembly would be dealing with additional funding available to it from Europe, as opposed to the previous situation?
I said I would be brief, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Sir John Gorman: Mr Hussey, you are a man of your word.

Mr William Hay: What the Minister of Finance and Personnel has announced today is fine detail. That is important and good for us all. Usually when the Minister announces a Budget, we get a run around west Tyrone roads.
One point concerns the maintenance of roads. There is no doubt that if we cannot maintain existing roads, we will find it more and more difficult to raise capital money for new schemes. The Department for Regional Development sees roads maintenance as a priority, because defects are increasing every year, and there is no money to repair them. How are we going to address that problem?
The Department has asked for additional funding of about £40 million to address this. We also have to raise the matter of the Roads Service’s capital budget with the Minister, because that concerns us deeply, not only in the west of the Province, but across Northern Ireland. That capital budget causes great concern. Officials tell those of us who managed to get re-elected to councils what they have to spend in our areas, whether for maintenance, capital schemes or whatever. Meetings between officials and councillors in all the 26 district councils are usually fairly lively.
Councillors ask whether the situation has improved since the setting up of the Assembly, and the public assumes that, because we now have an Assembly here, we have more money to spend and it should not be a problem for Mr Durkan to get a few million pounds if he needs them. Members of the public do not understand why we do not have extra money. To get the necessary money to deal with priorities is as difficult for the Minister of Finance as it is for any Minister. Irrespective of how the Minister of Finance announces extra money, he is criticised, because some of us will say that it is still not enough, and no matter how much money we get from the block grant, it will never be enough to address some of the serious issues that concern us, whether they be health, education, or the Department for Regional Development.
We will never have enough money to address the needs that must be looked at. We must look at other ways of raising money. That is where the difficulty arises. However, there are other models and methods that have to be considered.
Some of us who sit on the Regional Development Committee know the serious situation that the Water Service is in. Some of the issues that it has raised with Committee members would make your hair stand on end. We have heard about our sewerage system and water treatment system, and we are trying to find out exactly how to move things forward. We were simply told that there must be massive investment in those two areas in the Department for Regional Development. It could take five years, 10 years, or even longer, to reach the point where we have a modern system — whether it is a roads system or a water system.
EU regulations are driving forward the issue of the water system. We are having to try to keep abreast of regulations that change year after year, and it is costing the Department a huge amount of money to do that. I want to know how the Minister plans to raise the extra money needed if we are going to resolve some of the Northern Ireland’s serious problems.
All Departments need money — each needs a large amount of money to address the serious issues that are concerning us in Northern Ireland. As I said earlier, each time the Minister announces the Budget, or extra resources, it is only a small drop into what is really needed by every Department. The public perceives that the Assembly can address some of these problems very quickly. We know that some of the issues could take many years to address across every Department.
It is important that we try to come up with new ideas on how we can raise the necessary finances to address our problems. The public will not wait five or 10 years for the problems in health and hospital waiting lists to be dealt with. They will not wait much longer for problems in the transportation network to be addressed.
I heard Mr Hussey talking about transportation networks. There is no network in west Tyrone or throughout the west of the Province — an area starved of resources for many years. We could spend all day debating why that happened, but, as someone from the west, and who has represented the west of the Province for 20 years, I can say that the resources have not been there. They have not been there for a long time. The west of the Province comes from a lower base — it always has done.
When I see the road networks in other parts of the Province and come back to the west I ask myself "Where did it go wrong?" The problem has existed for about 30 years. I have no doubt about that. I remember when Roads Service officials came to council. There were occasions when we did not meet them at all. We did not even allow them to open the book, because we were so fed up with them continually telling us that there was no money for any capital schemes and that there would be no money for the next five to 10 years. I remember that we closed one council meeting after five minutes because there was no point in listening to them — they had nothing new to tell us since the previous year.
That is how bad it was. Things are slightly better now, because they understand the concerns of the west of the Province, but we could be debating the same issue in two or three years’ time and still have no real resources to show for it.

Mr P J Bradley: I congratulate the Minister on the presentation of the Estimates, and I welcome the increase in the funding for the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. However, there would be something wrong if, as elected representatives, we did not seek a little more.
What percentage of the estimated £223million will make its way directly to the farming community? I hope that that is not an unreasonable question. I would also like to say, following on from what the Chairperson of the Agriculture Committee said, that it is my party’s view that an early retirement scheme would be beneficial to the industry. Such a scheme, combined with a newcomer scheme, would have been welcome, but we may, regrettably, have to wait for at least another year. I hope that the Minister will take note for next year and put that near the top of his agenda. The Minister has earmarked £8·6million for rural development. That amount will not create the desired vibrancy in rural areas. Therefore it is important that as much of that sum as possible reaches the people.
I acknowledge the efforts made by the Minister to help the agriculture industry, and I congratulate him on the Estimates. No doubt, he has burned the midnight oil in preparing the paper. Will he give an assurance that the spending of the £223million will be closely monitored to ensure that every available penny reaches the farming community?

Mr Oliver Gibson: I come at the Budget speech today from a somewhat different angle. I was hopeful about the Budget; it is our first real attempt to assess our needs.
I want to put the case for the west of the Province. We have suffered a serious battering from bomb and bullet that has torn our social infrastructure apart. The Orange halls that were once community centres for the rural Protestant population have been neglected because of intimidation and other forms of discrimination. The halls are in a state ranging from good to very basic, but they are still part of the social infrastructure. If that community is to re-emerge as an active part of the west Tyrone community, it must be helped to develop and renew its social infrastructure.
Removing the rates from Orange halls would involve little effort, but it would help. Parochial halls, church halls and community halls are not rated, but they serve the same purposes as small rural Orange halls. The Orange halls are social centres for the local Protestant community but must pay rates. The cost of one cross-border conference would cover it. The Minister should consider that only a minor change to the legislation would be needed and that only a small amount of money would be lost by removing the rates. That would be a start to rebuilding the Protestant community’s infrastructure and would encourage those people to recommence active social life.
I also suggest that in the whole budgetary allowance, greater consideration should be given to victims. I am not talking just about the Omagh bomb. I am talking about the 97 people who were murdered in my constituency before the Omagh bomb. These are the people who, over 30 years, have suffered deep-seated physical, psychological and mental disabilities. Homes have been decimated. I would have thought that we would have shown reconciliation in this Budget by demonstrating that there was going to be a willingness and a helpfulness to the community that has suffered so much.
I am appealing today to the Minister to take on board those very human aspects of healing and reconciling those in the west of the Province who have suffered because of their remoteness and their religious affiliation. Their social infrastructure has to be activated and redeveloped to bring it up to modern needs and requirements.
I agree with William Hay that it did not matter how much the Minister announced. I thoroughly congratulate the Minister on presenting this Budget, with the increases therein. But let me take you to seven of my constituents who are waiting for heart bypasses — those operations that cast gloom over a family. Take a farmer who has been told some weeks ago that his condition is such that they will not allow him out of hospital. Priorities come into play. Finance comes into play. The man is sent home, and he is still at home, waiting for a call. It is to be hoped that he will get someone who has either dropped out of the queue, or who has died while still on the waiting list.
That is the reality of our provision at this time. I can think of seven others in my constituency about whom I have written to the Department of Health, asking that special consideration be given to them. They are the breadwinners of their families, with the whole family waiting in fear, trembling and desperation.
Budgetary consent is something that has to be examined. Where are our priorities? I think of those who are waiting for hip replacements and those who are struggling to get money to go into the private sector to be relieved of the serious agony of a hip joint replacement. I am told that there is a marketplace that ranges from £6,000 in the Royal Victoria Hospital to £2,000 in Letterkenny. There is something seriously wrong with our system when people are forced, despite having paid every required contribution to the Health Service, to go to their own private financial resources. This Budget does need examination.
I will move on to the area of rural proofing, which we were assured would take place. This Budget has not indicated how we are going to rural proof. How do you rural proof to give equality of opportunity to the people of my constituency as well as those who live in the more wealthy, opulent Strangford area? This Budget has to take consideration of Government policy statements. If the Government statements do not measure up — [Interruption].

Mr Jim Shannon: It was the voice from Strangford.

Mr Oliver Gibson: The voice from Strangford was just trying to compete with me.
The roads issue has already been very well dealt with, but I want to make another plea, because the Minister and the finance people have been good — [Interruption].

Sir John Gorman: I must insist that this does not happen again.

Mr Oliver Gibson: I also insist that it be switched off, because I am speaking.
We have £20 million for the A5, but we have the worse problem of getting to the A5 on class B roads. Our roads are outworn. I am sure that the Minister is fed up hearing this from west Tyrone and the west of the Province, but the roads are rugged and outworn.
Yesterday evening I went to look at Oldcastle Road outside Newtownstewart. The last time I was on it, it was like a road into a quarry. The best they could do was darn the road, but the road has often been darned. I could take Members through Omagh and along the Hospital Road and the Derry Road, two arterial routes through the largest town in the west of the Province — but they are like test tracks for a Sherman tank. The surface has been rutted, relaid and re-piped — everything has been done to it. Driving on it now is like spending an hour on the bumper cars at Bundoran.
Serious consideration needs to be given to us. We do not have railways or airports; we have only one infrastructure —a roads system, and it is a terrible one. The question has been asked "Is it worn beyond repair?". It is now becoming an argument about value for money. A little repair over many years would have prevented the massive capital input that is now needed to bring the roads up to standard. Even if the Minister were to pour in millions of pounds per year, the contractors would probably be working and charging double the price because they could not keep up with the amount of work that needs to be done.
We have a desperate problem and, as my Colleague William Hay has suggested, alternative forms of financing our infrastructure must be sought and found, because we cannot go on living in a state of desperation. There is supposed to be a normal standard, but our roads are abnormal.
Finally — and I know that our time is nearly up — I want to deal with education and rural proofing. Rural schools are still a central part of our community, and there is always a push for rationalisation and great concern about viable numbers. However, other countries like Belgium and Holland have proved that you do not need to have such equations of numbers. They deliver a very good education system — in fact, one that is suspected to be better than ours at primary level — yet they can retain a rural school infrastructure. By clustering the resources and combining a number of other qualities of the provision of teaching staff, rural schools can be retained. However, no research has been done on that, and there is no indication in the Estimates that any research money is going to be put into that area.
If the Assembly is serious about the Budget proposals, there are areas of concern that need to be given priority. I appeal to the Minister to prioritise in order to solve some of the desperate rural problems.

Sir John Gorman: The sitting must finish at 6.00 pm. Does that give the Minister sufficient time to give the House a sketchy version of his winding-up speech? If not, the House will adjourn until tomorrow.

Mr John Tierney: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Standing Orders state that the sitting can carry on until 6.00 pm. If the Minister is not finished his winding-up speech by then, he can do so tomorrow.

Mr Mark Durkan: I will endeavour to respond to the debate, and I hope that I will not need much time tomorrow. When I opened the debate I was looking forward to a responsible discussion of the Supply resolution, and that has been achieved. The contributions have ranged widely, although not as widely as some previous contributions have, and Members’ points have been made clearly and forcefully. I have noted each of the points, and if I am not able to address them all, I will follow them up and reflect further.
The motion before the House is the basis upon which the legislature, in the form of the Assembly, authorises the spending of Departments, the Assembly, the Northern Ireland Audit Office and other bodies to enable them to carry out their functions. That is one of the Assembly’s most fundamental responsibilities. It involves the authorisation of expenditure and, importantly, it holds Departments to account as they seek to deliver on their Programme for Government priorities. I accept that time is limited, so if I leave out some significant challenges that have been made to me, it will have been conveniently so.
Mr Molloy, Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel, raised some questions about the Budget consultation — and I appreciate that Mr Molloy had to leave the House to attend a council annual general meeting at 7.00 pm. The Executive are committed to providing Committees with a constructive role in the development of the Budget for 2002-03. That is reflected in the proposals that have been set out for the Budget timetable, which I presented in a previous statement.
The Department has tried to deliver on the main aim as set out by the Committee for Finance and Personnel last year. It had concerns about the time available to consider the Budget, and we were keen to ensure that we would be able to take the Budget as soon as possible after the summer recess. To facilitate that, the Department of Finance and Personnel has today made the position reports available to the Committee Chairpersons, through the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. Those reports will not only inform the Chairpersons of the Executive’s consideration of the work in relation to the Programme for Government but also of the work relating to the draft Budget.
I assure the House, and particularly the Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel, that those position reports were only made available to Ministers in the middle of last week. Therefore, there has been no question of trying to pre-cook things separately through the Executive in ways that deny Committees anything.
The position reports that were made available to Committees today reflect the same information that went to the Ministers last week — bids for next year, for instance. Therefore information is not being withheld from Members in the way that has been suggested. Members will be able to discuss further issues relating to the future process when I make a pre-Budget statement tomorrow, after which they will be free to ask questions about next year’s Budget, and also as the Department takes forward the work with the Committee for Finance and Personnel.
Many of the points raised have involved people seeking increases in various budget lines and emphasising the needs of particular sectors or particular localities. Many of those issues will be more pertinent to the consideration of next year’s Budget, and the possible adjustments to the Programme for Government, than to the Supply resolution or the Budget Bill per se.
I remind Members that we are dealing with the second instalment — the major and final instalment — of the Budget for this year. The figures that are being referred to today, and the Estimates that were laid in the Assembly on 11 June, are figures that derive from the Budget. I have explained why some of the figures are not in exact accord with the Budget because of the nature of the Estimates in changing over to resource accounting and budgeting. Dr Paisley reflected on that in a point that arose in exchanges between his Committee and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development.
Members have raised a number of questions. Mr Shannon, Mr Hay, Mr Hussey and Mr Gibson all raised issues about the roads budget. Some of the questions were about roads in particular localities, such as the Ards Peninsula, west Tyrone and the western area in general. I want to emphasise that the Budget that we adopted did commit new resources to roads. It also committed new resources to other significant areas of the Department for Regional Development’s programme.
We are conscious of the historic underfunding that there has been in relation to infrastructure. The moneys that we made available in the Budget were further supplemented by allocations from the Executive programme funds and infrastructure fund.
In some areas, people are pressing for further attention to be given to maintenance and capital investment in roads. Those will be relevant issues for people to pursue and take up in the context of the preparatory work for next year’s Budget and the Programme for Government. If Members have particular concerns about the relative priorities within the existing roads budget, those can be taken up with the Minister and the Department for Regional Development, as prioritisation within the budget falls to that Department.
I would like to make a similar point in relation to some of the questions that were raised about education. Members have emphasised the importance of ensuring adequate resources for schools. The Executive, the Minister of Education and I have made it clear that we want to make sure that we improve our school stock and the performance of our schools. We want to do that with proper investment, both in the education programme and in the schools capital programme. We have shown that in the previous Budget, again supplemented by the allocations from the Executive programme funds.
I stress to Members that I have noted the insinuation that there is some discrimination being practised either by the Executive or by the Minister of Education in relation to the schools’ budget. I reject any such insinuation. If Members believe that any measure being pursued on behalf of this Assembly by any Department raises issues in relation to equality considerations, there are procedures that can be invoked on that. No one has ever invoked any of those procedures. People have traded on all sorts of insinuations. I stated in the House previously, when this question arose in the context of the Executive programme funds, that allocations are made on the basis of educational need.
The readiness of projects can also be relevant when it comes to spending money. It would not make sense to allocate money to projects not ready to make use of it. The information shows that the allocations are being made fairly and properly.
The question was asked as to what proportion of the agriculture spend will go to farmers. A significant proportion of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development’s Estimate will benefit farmers directly. In "Resources, Grants", £170 million is for subsidy payments direct to farmers under the common agriculture policy. Additionally, there is an allocation of £14 million for agrienvironment schemes. In "Resources, Other Current", there is an allocation of £12 million for animal disease compensation. A substantial proportion of the "Resources, Administration" total of £117 million reflects the cost of departmental staff carrying out essential work for the operation of the industry. This includes statutory and regulatory inspections and testing, the reduction of animal disease levels, ensuring access to EU funds and high-quality education and advice.
Dr Birnie raised a number of concerns within the context of a broad welcome for our ability to conduct our Budget business in this way. I reassure Dr Birnie that the Executive do appreciate the significance that many Members — particularly the members of his Committee — attach to improving our performance in relation to basic adult skills, especially numeracy and literacy. We have been able to make some moves in that direction, not least in the context of the Executive programme funds. As regards further improvements, I refer DrBirnie to the preparatory work in the context of next year’s Budget and Programme for Government.
Ms Lewsley stressed the need for us to look at efficiency, not just at the money that is becoming available for the Budget. Committees in particular — and the Assembly in general — need to make sure that we are not just watching the bids but overseeing the spending in a sound and proper way. Ms Lewsley referred to the fact that we have to try to find additional means to supplement our expenditure and ways of improving delivery in order to release other resources. The same point was made by Mr Hay when he emphasised the need to add to the scope that we have for improving the levels of money available for public services and for important capital programmes. MrHay and MrGibson welcomed the increases available in this Budget. I also welcome those increases, and that is why I have always voted for this Budget. However, some people who have welcomed the increases that are reflected in today’s motion have not always voted for the Budget the whole way down the line.
When looking at areas of additional resources there is no simple solution. We cannot take an "over the rainbow" approach to the question of the Barnett formula. Dr Birnie’s cautious words were correct in that we face difficult issues in relation to the Barnett formula. We do have some hard questions to put to the Treasury, but hard questions will also be put to us, and not just by the Treasury but by a range of other regional and national interests.
We must not believe that there is a magic bullet out there as far as the Barnett formula or finding additional moneys are concerned. Some of the ideas being suggested as magic bullets, such as the setting up of some type of bond, would not be easy to implement, because Treasury rules would count those as spending, and they would be scored against the departmental expenditure limits. It would not give us any additional public spending.
The time has beaten me. I hope that I have responded to most of the issues raised by Members. Any individual points not addressed in my general response will be followed up directly or will be brought to the attention of the Minister concerned.

Sir John Gorman: I have looked up the Standing Order, and as long as I am on my feet, calling for a Division, we can go on for a few minutes after 6.00 pm. I must remind everyone that the Supply resolution motion is subject to section 63 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. This means that it has to be agreed on a cross-community basis. When I put the question, both sides of the Chamber should reply.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved (with cross-community support):
That this Assembly approves that a sum not exceeding £4,679,167,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund for or towards defraying the charges for Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Northern Ireland Audit Office, the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and the northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints, and the Office for the Regulation of Electricity and Gas for the year ending 31 March 2002 and that resources, not exceeding £5,021,262,000, be authorised for use by Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Northern Ireland Audit Office, the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints, and the Office for the Regulation of Electricity and Gas for the year ending 31 March 2002 as summarised for each Department or other public body in columns 3(a) and 3(b) of Table 1.3 in the volume of the Northern Ireland Estimates 2001-02 that was laid before the Assembly on 11 June 2001.
Adjourned at 6.01 pm.